Honor Roll

Some claims are so outlandish that there is no basis for reasonable discussion as the poster would not have reached this conclusion had they not been impervious to facts or reason. Oswald's presence in Mexico is well documented. There would be no real reason for conspirators to fake such a trip. And think of the complexity and risk of pulling that off including convincing employees of the embassies of a hostile power to lie for them. It's ridiculous. Oswald was already a known Marxist defector. There would be no apparent purpose to faking his presence in Mexico City. If the conspirators wanted to make it look as though Cuba played a role in the assassination as a pretext for an invasion via this trip to the embassy, then why would they do exactly the opposite and put all the blame on Oswald and absolve Cuba of any involvement after the assassination? Narrative consistency has never stood in the way of a good CTer yarn, though.

Martin has harped on this being only a "circumstantial" evidence case apparently misunderstanding that this term doesn't mean weak. He now informs us that direct evidence can't be trusted either. That really narrows things down! We are finally getting to the center of the lollipop, though. At its heart what John and Martin are contending is that nothing can ever be proven if they don't like the implications. The case against Oswald is the collective product of lies, fakery, unfairness, coincidence, police incompetence, chance, being unlucky, but never Oswald's guilt.

The CTer "mind" and use of "logic" are curious things to behold. Here we learn that because a bus transfer found in Oswald's possession is allegedly pristine that means it must have been planted. A dubious subjective claim. And we are left to ponder why the conspirators need to put Oswald on a random bus that goes nowhere and advances the plot not an iota at considerable risk. How do they know, for example, which bus in the vicinity at the right moment? How do they convince a random witness on that bus to confirm that Oswald was on it? How do they convince the bus driver to confirm that he gave the transfer to a man? How do they convince any other passengers to avoid blowing up this fake story? Don't they have enough problems killing the President, and hiding the identity of the real assassin without adding a random bus load of random passengers into the plot? What is the purpose of this entire charade? We are left only to ponder.

The only explanation ever proffered is that the bus story is necessary to confirm that Oswald was wearing the arrest shirt during the assassination because fibers from that shirt are consistent with those found on the rifle. But that makes little sense. There is no real need to do that and, as CTers often argue themselves, the fiber evidence is not that compelling on this point. The FBI confirms only that the fibers are consistent with Oswald's shirt. Being found on the rifle also doesn't preclude the fibers from the shirt from getting on the rifle on some occasion prior to 11.22. Not crucial given the other evidence that link him to the rifle. There is no way that any conspirator goes through this risky charade simply to put Oswald on the bus to nowhere. It is laughable when viewed through the narrative of a fake event supported only by the subjective assessment that the bus transfer should not be "pristine."

If coercing people was so easy why is the evidence such a shambles? Surely Frazier and sister would have been adamant the bag was 3 feet long. Marina would confirm she saw the paper and tape the night before and Ruth Paine saw Oswald leaving the garage at 1am with a screw driver and scissors. A few spare 6.5 mm rounds lying around would have helped as well.

Why would so many people be allowed in the trauma room or at the autopsy if they were covering anything up? Two pathologists and a technician or two in a private setting would be the preferred course of action. Room protected from outside by the secret service so the pathologists could bash the head in with a hammer, destroying unwanted evidence. Why didn't those easily coerced people plant numerous clear finger prints from Oswald all over the rifle, the bag, the boxes or Tippits car?

Why didn't they easily coerce witnesses to testify they saw Oswald and only Oswald shooting from the 6th floor window? Why didn't they just sew things thing up tight right from the offset? Lets not forget about the unspoken witnesses. Those who would have seen Oswald somewhere else that Thursday night and Friday morning if he wasn't at the Paines. They would need to be coerced easily as well.

The very worst conspiracy theorists are not those with crackpot theories but the closet CTer contrarian who takes issue with every piece of evidence against Oswald but without offering ANY explanation for what did happen if their arguments about the evidence were valid. The reason is obvious. There is no sensible narrative that can explain what happened if Oswald was not the assassin. Our dishonest contrarians know this. It's just a game to avoid checkmate by taking issue with everything. Basically what a defense attorney does for a client that they know is guilty. Frame the evidence against an impossible standard of proof, suggest there is (false) doubt, don't bother to address what did happen if their client is not guilty. Repeat endlessly.

Who is this "they" you keep mentioning since you deny suggesting a vast conspiracy? And "they" also have a narrative? That's a whole lot of bad luck for old Lee to constantly be connected to these events while out for a stroll to the movies. He is the only person on planet Earth to be in the TSBD at the moment shots were fired who then crosses paths with the Tippit murder (the only murder of a DPD officer in many years) less than an hour later. And he looks so much like the murderer that several witnesses ID him as the shooter. And he happens to have a pistol when arrested with the same types of ammunition as the murderer. Such constant bad luck. You nuts can't be for real. This is more like a game to see how long you can avoid acknowledging checkmate by taking absurd, wildly implausible, and often embarrassing contrarian positions to any evidence linking Oswald to this crime.

Yes, using common sense and reason on these nuts is like trying to teach a chimp to speak French. A waste of time. If they were capable of that feat, they wouldn't be CTers to begin with. It's all the more amusing that these same nuts entertain all manner of wildly outlandish, baseless theories about average citizens Oswald encountered for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever but then dispute any logical inference relating to Oswald's actions. That would include his scouting a place in the building that gave him the best combination of a shooting location and seclusion to commit the act. Oswald would also have been aware of the general patterns and behaviors of his fellow employees including whether the 6th floor was generally deserted at lunch time. He had worked in the building for a month or so. When he selects the 6th floor as his shooting location, he decides where it is best to hide the rifle on that floor. And that would be where he goes with the rifle when he arrives that morning. Not rocket science. He is seen carrying his clipboard and the clipboard is found on the 6th floor. A logical inference is that he is trying to give the appearance of being busy with his clipboard to explain his presence on the floor just prior to the assassination. Once he decides it's a go, the last thing he does is place the clipboard down and retrieve his rifle. Thus, the location of the clipboard may provide an indication as to where he hid the rifle before the assassination. And its in the same general area where he hides it after the assassination. Suggesting that Oswald believes it to be a good hiding spot.

Only Oswald can know certain details of the crime. He was in the process of committing a crime and took measures to hide his activities in anticipation of that crime. We can, however, apply logic and common sense to the evidence to make certain logical inferences about his actions. But no one needs to prove with absolute certainty where Oswald hid the rifle or whether he had some trepidation about carrying it into the building to demonstrate his guilt. The presence of Oswald's rifle on the floor from which witnesses confirm there was a shooter along with fired bullet casings from his rifle make him the obvious suspect. His prints on the SN boxes and bag further implicate him. Absent any type of reasonable explanation as to how his rifle ended up there, his goose is cooked. Instead Oswald flees the building, gets a pistol, shoots a police officer, and lies to the police about not owning a rifle. His story about the bag also contradicts what Frazier tells the police (i.e. that he asked Oswald about his lunch and Oswald confirmed that he was not carrying his lunch on that day). All highly indicative of guilt. It is laughable that anyone can believe from these facts and circumstances that there is any doubt whatsoever of his guilt. A contrarian can dispute facts, evidence, common sense and logic to the end of time if they don't desire reaching any conclusion. It's just a lazy and dishonest way to create the false impression of doubt. Nothing in human history could ever be accepted as fact applying that type of alice-in-wonderland kookery to any situation. It's what a defense attorney does when they realize their client is guilty. An implicit acknowledgement of guilt.

I'm surprised our resident nitwits haven't suggested that Oswald's jacket wasn't found in the theatre because there is no evidence that anyone searched for it. Maybe it is still there somewhere like Frazier's two-foot long bag in the TSBD or Oswald's rifle at the post office. It's laughable to watch these kooks dance like circus monkeys around the obvious evidence and then deny they are suggesting a vast conspiracy even though the implications of what they are suggesting mean that almost everyone - including many random people whose testimony they otherwise rely upon - intentionally lied or planted evidence to frame Oswald. And they take themselves so seriously. Like ghost hunters.

Right on cue. There is no more evidence that anyone needs to provide of Oswald's guilt. It is the most investigated criminal case in history. The evidence against Oswald has been made available in excruciating detail to the tune of millions of pages, thousands of books, and a multitude of other sources including kook "research." No one person could read it all in ten lifetimes. The basic facts and supporting evidence are well documented and laid out in a multitude of resources and official investigations. What exactly would you like me or anyone else to add to this mountain of information? What you are suggesting is that the world has not satisfied your subjective impossible standard of proof on the topic. That is not a problem reasonable people can or need to sort out. There is no amount of evidence that can dissuade UFO, bigfoot, and ghost believers. There are simply some people in society a few fries short of a happy meal. They are true believers in a falsehood. That doesn't change the facts or evidence one iota, however.

According to a lot of CTs.

1. Oswald liked Kennedy.

2. Oswald was a US agent.

3. Oswald was a poor shot.

4. Oswald didn't own a rifle.

5. Oswald didn't own a revolver.

Knowing the above how can any CT explain why someone would choose Oswald as a Patsy?

Finding a Patsy who fit the above criteria wouldn't be hard to find.

1. Someone who went around hating Kennedy and in Dallas at the time finding a hater wouldn't be difficult.

2. Why pick someone who has an attachment to the US government, that's just asking for trouble.

3. And again, you pick someone who had an excellent military firearms record or was well known at rifle ranges because you are trying to sell what wasn't a particularly easy shot, after all it took Oswald 3 shots till he accomplished his goal.

4. Picking someone who had a regular relationship with a Gun Shop seems like a no brainer

5. See 4.

Conclusion.

The Oswald that the CT's portray would never in a million years and that's no exaggeration, be picked as a Patsy.

Which just leaves us with Oswald, Oswald who hated his country and defected to the enemy, Oswald who wrote in his diary that he attempted suicide, Oswald who wrote to his brother that he would kill any American who defended the American government ANY AMERICAN, Oswald who bashed his wife, Oswald who idolised Castro and must have resented Kennedy's potential intrusion, Oswald who tried to kill General Walker, Oswald the Cop Killer and Oswald the Assassinator.

The unwillingness of nuts like Martin and John I. to accept that Marina saw a rifle in the blanket despite her clear testimony on that point is a classic example of their dishonest and contrarian approach to this case. Marina is asked repeatedly about a "rifle" in her testimony. In each instance she answers the question. Never once does she interject any doubt that she is talking about a rifle rather than some generic object made of wood. And of course a rifle stock is made of wood. But that doesn't give a moments pause to loons like M&J. They are off and running while ignoring the totality of her testimony in which she makes reference to a "rifle" and responds to questions about a "rifle." And, of course, Marina has never changed her story in the last fifty plus years that Oswald stored the rifle in Paine's garage. These jokers have no interest in the truth. This is just a endless game to take issue with everything that points to Oswald's guilt. And these are the same dishonest nuts that claim they are not alleging a vast conspiracy. But they reject evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle and all the documents, prints, pictures and testimony that link him to that rifle. Imagine how many people would have to be involved in a conspiracy just to fabricate that evidence. It boggles the mind.

Oswald himself probably couldn't recreate it. On the day he wasn't trying to recreate anything though. He battered 3 rounds rapid down the street and got lucky. It happens. 9/11 is proof it happens.

It's funny when kooks mistakenly believe that everything has to be proven to them to their unattainable satisfaction.

Thank you. You are the voice of reason. Over the years of the computer age, every nut with a conspiracy theory has come out of the woodwork with outrageous conspiracy theories. People like Leroy Blevins who is constantly posting nothing but gibberish on his YouTube channel, and people are loony enough to suck it up. Same with others on YouTube. Now, we are also dealing with nutcases claiming a "Mandela Effect" involved . That there were only 4 people within the limousine, not six and it's catching on like wildfire. The millennials are hard at work pulling things out of thin air. During the 60's, 70's and 80's, it was David Lifton who came up with the most ludicrous conspiracy theories of them all. He believed that there were gunmen in the trees lining the knoll, along with a camouflaged "grassy knoll", where gunmen were shooting from the hill itself and that Governor Connally was shot from the front. Now, all these years later, people are claiming that Bill Greer shot JFK, Jackie shot JFK, Connally shot JFK, that the whole assassination was "staged", that the Zapruder film is "fake", that certain films and photographs were altered and the list goes. We have people going to Oswald's grave, standing over it and singing songs to him. I never knew such a bunch of foolish people who would support a man who was a violent tempered, wife abusing, irresponsible dad who slapped his mother, pulled a knife on his sister-in-law, admitted that he was a marxist, defected to Russia, told his brother that he hated America, tried to commit suicide, and on and on. If this doesn't paint a picture of a very disturbed, rotten, hateful man, nothing does. But they support him. Much like the Charles Manson sympathizers.

Lame John I. excuses:

1) Everyone lied or planted evidence if it implicates Oswald (repeat in every instance but then deny this is what you are doing).

2) Suggest that every explanation that addresses an insane CTer claim is a "strawman" argument (demonstrating either a traumatic childhood experience with The Wizard of Oz or a way to avoid acknowledging the lunacy of these claims without having to address the substance)

3) Suggest all evidence is the product of an "opinion, "assumption," or "speculation." Fingerprints, hand writing, document, pictures - any inference drawn from this evidence is merely an opinion. This limitation does not, however, apparently apply to any nutty counter-alternative to Oswald's guilt no matter how improbable or baseless. If it is possible, then it can be entertained or implied so long as it lends itself to doubt about Oswald's guilt.