Warren Commission was correct........Oswald acted alone

[candycorn]

there is one of the agents i was talking about ^ WRONGwinger,alerted by his boss to come and shit all over the floor just now as he does everyday everytime he opens his mouth. this stupid **** troll mac the knife can never admit when he has been proven wrong even over a little tiny thing like the rams being back in LA when he said they would NEVER come back.this troll STILL whines and whines like a three year old crybaby about being proven wrong on THAT all the time.pretty pathetic anybody here would agree except his buttlover shills candyass and the evil NAZI agent.

Oswald acted alone

You have posted nothing to prove otherwise

<Note: emojis don’t help prove your case, try FACTS>

.
Oswald was a patsy...come on RW...he was assasinated before he could testify.

Personally, I think Hillary was behind the entire thing.

Everyone who is arrested claims they are a patsy

It wasn’t me.......I was set up........Honest

I'm not so sure about that.

It is one thing to say "I didn't do it". It is something a bit different to, in the hours right after the assassination say, "I'm just a patsy". Now, if you're sitting in your cell a few days or weeks later and decide to go to the patsy card, I can more readily dismiss that. Because the word "patsy" breathes breath into the body of other actors being involved and your being set up to take the fall by yourself. Saying "I didn't do it" is what is expected and implicates someone else but not necessarily that you were set up by someone else.

Honest officer.....it wasn’t me
It was “some dude”

This is a set up ....trust me

Just another (albeit very minor) detail that speaks to a larger conspiracy. One would figure that a whackjob seeking only a place in history would take credit now, wouldn't they?

 

[Soupnazi630]

Clearly JFK was shot from the front, hence a conspiracy on the part of many in our government. Numerous witnesses confirm this.

Only silly statist shills disagree.

Wrong.

No witness confirms it and there is no evidence he was shot from the front.

There is no such thing as a shill on here.

More lies. Numerous witnesses confirmed shots from the front, but you won’t find them in the fictional novel entitled the Warren Commission Report.

Wrong there are no witnesses at all who confirm shots from the front.

The vast majority of witnesses heard the shots coming from above and behind only a few heard shots coming from elsewhere.

Sorry but the Warren Commission report included both groups. The point is a few witnesses confirms nothing. The physical evidence and the vast majority of witnesses are in sync and prove Oswald shot kennedy from the TSBD.

You are proven wrong by the evidence and you are the only liar as no evidence of any sort supports your uneducated assertions

More lies...

Numerous witnesses confirmed shots from your buddies hiding on the grassy knoll.

Doctors at Parkland confirm shots from front.

JFK's assistant press secretary confirmed shots from front.

You must admit your beloved government lied to you and you being a statist dummy, gladly accepted those lies.

Wrong.

No one CONFIRMED shots from the front .

In order to confirm something there has to be evidence. There is NO evidence of a frontal shot.

The press secretary was speaking before any evidence was found, his statement is pure speculation, much like your assertion.

You cannot name any such witnesses because they do not exist. You keep referring to them without names.

The doctors at parkland confirmed nothing as we have proven over and over. They were not examining the body to determine specific details they were either engaged in life saving measures or merely taking a casual glance at the body. The autopsy proves them wrong and despite some ignorant claims to the contrary the autopsy was performed by experienced experts.

I must do nothing of the sort when you have failed miserably to cite evidence of such lies.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Oswald acted alone

You have posted nothing to prove otherwise

<Note: emojis don’t help prove your case, try FACTS>

.
Oswald was a patsy...come on RW...he was assasinated before he could testify.

Personally, I think Hillary was behind the entire thing.

Everyone who is arrested claims they are a patsy

It wasn’t me.......I was set up........Honest

I'm not so sure about that.

It is one thing to say "I didn't do it". It is something a bit different to, in the hours right after the assassination say, "I'm just a patsy". Now, if you're sitting in your cell a few days or weeks later and decide to go to the patsy card, I can more readily dismiss that. Because the word "patsy" breathes breath into the body of other actors being involved and your being set up to take the fall by yourself. Saying "I didn't do it" is what is expected and implicates someone else but not necessarily that you were set up by someone else.

Honest officer.....it wasn’t me
It was “some dude”

This is a set up ....trust me

Just another (albeit very minor) detail that speaks to a larger conspiracy. One would figure that a whackjob seeking only a place in history would take credit now, wouldn't they?

No not necessarily. It is in fact a minor detail. One has no ides what he was thinking. He may have intended to deny his guilt in order to get into the court room to stand trial. After all if he merely confessed the trial would be short and sweet and he likely wanted to milk the limelight.

It was not a set up and you are not trustworthy.

 

[rightwinger]

As I expected, our resident conspiracy theorists can come up with no evidence to support the OVERWHELMING evidence that Oswald acted alone

The best they can come up with is some unsupported theories an emojis from SLRAMSfan

 

[candycorn]

As I expected, our resident conspiracy theorists can come up with no evidence to support the OVERWHELMING evidence that Oswald acted alone

The best they can come up with is some unsupported theories an emojis from SLRAMSfan

By the same token, those who feel Oswald acted alone cannot explain why this killer didn't assemble his arsenal prior to killing Kennedy. They do laughingly attempt to dismiss the importance of it by magically transforming themselves into Oswald's mind and saying its wasn't important to LHO, he didn't have an opportunity (only to be forced to admit he did later) and so on and so fourth....yet somehow cannot explain why the physical evidence--no theory here--confirms that it WAS important enough for LHO to go get the gun AFTER the assassination and that he did have means, motive, and opportunity.

Does it mean he was part of some international conspiracy stretching from Moscow to Havana to Dallas? No.

Does it give any sober analyst pause to believe that there may be something more to the story than what has been uncovered? It should.

Neither the Warren Commission nor us who think there is more to the story have a slam dunk. We will never know the whole story.

 

[Soupnazi630]

As I expected, our resident conspiracy theorists can come up with no evidence to support the OVERWHELMING evidence that Oswald acted alone

The best they can come up with is some unsupported theories an emojis from SLRAMSfan

By the same token, those who feel Oswald acted alone cannot explain why this killer didn't assemble his arsenal prior to killing Kennedy. They do laughingly attempt to dismiss the importance of it by magically transforming themselves into Oswald's mind and saying its wasn't important to LHO, he didn't have an opportunity (only to be forced to admit he did later) and so on and so fourth....yet somehow cannot explain why the physical evidence--no theory here--confirms that it WAS important enough for LHO to go get the gun AFTER the assassination and that he did have means, motive, and opportunity.

Does it mean he was part of some international conspiracy stretching from Moscow to Havana to Dallas? No.

Does it give any sober analyst pause to believe that there may be something more to the story than what has been uncovered? It should.

Neither the Warren Commission nor us who think there is more to the story have a slam dunk. We will never know the whole story.

Your analogy is a false equivalence.

There are many good reasons why he did not gather his rifle and pistol.

You simply are a liar who ignores these logical reasons and make up a lie about admissions which no one gave.

Yes the pistol was important after the assassination of Kennedy but not before. That is fact and he did not actually have opportunity to get both. Those are facts.

The fact that you lie about it proves you are simply a conspiracy FOOL who like the other imbeciles refuses to acknowledge evidence when it is in your face.

 

[gipper]

More lies...

Numerous witnesses confirmed shots from your buddies hiding on the grassy knoll.

Doctors at Parkland confirm shots from front.

JFK's assistant press secretary confirmed shots from front.

You must admit your beloved government lied to you and you being a statist dummy, gladly accepted those lies.

WSrong.

No one CONFIRMED shots from the front .

In order to confirm something there has to be evidence. There is NO evidence of a frontal shot.

The press secretary was speaking before any evidence was found, his statement is pure speculation, much like your assertion.

You cannot name any such witnesses because they do not exist. You keep referring to them without names.

The doctors at parkland confirmed nothing as we have proven over and over. They were not examining the body to determine specific details they were either engaged in life saving measures or merely taking a casual glance at the body. The autopsy proves them wrong and despite some ignorant claims to the contrary the autopsy was performed by experienced experts.

I must do nothing of the sort when you have failed miserably to cite evidence of such lies.

Lie lies all lies.

Yes your statements are all lies mine are factual.

This is why you never cite evidence.

Still lying after 55 long years...statists are just so dumb..

Yes you are lying as you have from day one and that is proven.

You and the other conspiracy fools are the proven liars and gullible frauds.

Hey Sloppy..you better get over to this thread and spew your lies...

New Evidence on the JFK assassination

 

[candycorn]

As I expected, our resident conspiracy theorists can come up with no evidence to support the OVERWHELMING evidence that Oswald acted alone

The best they can come up with is some unsupported theories an emojis from SLRAMSfan

By the same token, those who feel Oswald acted alone cannot explain why this killer didn't assemble his arsenal prior to killing Kennedy. They do laughingly attempt to dismiss the importance of it by magically transforming themselves into Oswald's mind and saying its wasn't important to LHO, he didn't have an opportunity (only to be forced to admit he did later) and so on and so fourth....yet somehow cannot explain why the physical evidence--no theory here--confirms that it WAS important enough for LHO to go get the gun AFTER the assassination and that he did have means, motive, and opportunity.

Does it mean he was part of some international conspiracy stretching from Moscow to Havana to Dallas? No.

Does it give any sober analyst pause to believe that there may be something more to the story than what has been uncovered? It should.

Neither the Warren Commission nor us who think there is more to the story have a slam dunk. We will never know the whole story.

Your analogy is a false equivalence.

There are many good reasons why he did not gather his rifle and pistol.

You simply are a liar who ignores these logical reasons and make up a lie about admissions which no one gave.

Yes the pistol was important after the assassination of Kennedy but not before. That is fact and he did not actually have opportunity to get both. Those are facts.

The fact that you lie about it proves you are simply a conspiracy FOOL who like the other imbeciles refuses to acknowledge evidence when it is in your face.

Okay, isn't the burden of proof on you to prove he did not actually have an opportunity to get both?

Prove it. We know he had enough money to take cabs/buses to all the places he needed to go to collect his arsenal. The mileage radius doesn't seem to be prohibitive so he had enough time. And clearly he had the motive as he proved after the assassination.

So I am saying he had means, motive and opportunity. Please prove that he did not.

Do you think you can do that? I'll let rightwinger --someone who agrees with you about the WC be the moderator to decide if your proof is valid.

We're not talking about anything other than your allegation that "he did not actually have opportunity to get both. Those are the facts".

Okay?

The floor is yours.

 

[Soupnazi630]

As I expected, our resident conspiracy theorists can come up with no evidence to support the OVERWHELMING evidence that Oswald acted alone

The best they can come up with is some unsupported theories an emojis from SLRAMSfan

By the same token, those who feel Oswald acted alone cannot explain why this killer didn't assemble his arsenal prior to killing Kennedy. They do laughingly attempt to dismiss the importance of it by magically transforming themselves into Oswald's mind and saying its wasn't important to LHO, he didn't have an opportunity (only to be forced to admit he did later) and so on and so fourth....yet somehow cannot explain why the physical evidence--no theory here--confirms that it WAS important enough for LHO to go get the gun AFTER the assassination and that he did have means, motive, and opportunity.

Does it mean he was part of some international conspiracy stretching from Moscow to Havana to Dallas? No.

Does it give any sober analyst pause to believe that there may be something more to the story than what has been uncovered? It should.

Neither the Warren Commission nor us who think there is more to the story have a slam dunk. We will never know the whole story.

Your analogy is a false equivalence.

There are many good reasons why he did not gather his rifle and pistol.

You simply are a liar who ignores these logical reasons and make up a lie about admissions which no one gave.

Yes the pistol was important after the assassination of Kennedy but not before. That is fact and he did not actually have opportunity to get both. Those are facts.

The fact that you lie about it proves you are simply a conspiracy FOOL who like the other imbeciles refuses to acknowledge evidence when it is in your face.

Okay, isn't the burden of proof on you to prove he did not actually have an opportunity to get both?

Prove it. We know he had enough money to take cabs/buses to all the places he needed to go to collect his arsenal. The mileage radius doesn't seem to be prohibitive so he had enough time. And clearly he had the motive as he proved after the assassination.

So I am saying he had means, motive and opportunity. Please prove that he did not.

Do you think you can do that? I'll let rightwinger --someone who agrees with you about the WC be the moderator to decide if your proof is valid.

We're not talking about anything other than your allegation that "he did not actually have opportunity to get both. Those are the facts".

Okay?

The floor is yours.

Wrong jackass;.

We know he began to plan the assassination after noon on Nov 21st. This left him with half a day to make things happen. He had to do so without raising suspicion. Moving back and forth on public transportation would have raised his wife's suspicions and she knew he had a history of attempted murder. Transporting the rifle on public buses or cabs was not acceptable as it would raise attention. He had to get a ride to Ruth Payne's and stay there until he had an opportunity to retrieve the rifle and conceal it without his wife or Ruth Payne noticing and then wait for the ride back the next morning.

The pistol was unimportant until the assassination was over and he was on the run.

you are a liar and i have proven these facts to you overt and over.

Much like LARAM and Gipper you are too childish to admit facts but they are in your face and you have been ******* pwned.

Just grow the **** up you are defeated and you KNOW IT

 

[rightwinger]

As I expected, our resident conspiracy theorists can come up with no evidence to support the OVERWHELMING evidence that Oswald acted alone

The best they can come up with is some unsupported theories an emojis from SLRAMSfan

By the same token, those who feel Oswald acted alone cannot explain why this killer didn't assemble his arsenal prior to killing Kennedy. They do laughingly attempt to dismiss the importance of it by magically transforming themselves into Oswald's mind and saying its wasn't important to LHO, he didn't have an opportunity (only to be forced to admit he did later) and so on and so fourth....yet somehow cannot explain why the physical evidence--no theory here--confirms that it WAS important enough for LHO to go get the gun AFTER the assassination and that he did have means, motive, and opportunity.

Does it mean he was part of some international conspiracy stretching from Moscow to Havana to Dallas? No.

Does it give any sober analyst pause to believe that there may be something more to the story than what has been uncovered? It should.

Neither the Warren Commission nor us who think there is more to the story have a slam dunk. We will never know the whole story.

Your analogy is a false equivalence.

There are many good reasons why he did not gather his rifle and pistol.

You simply are a liar who ignores these logical reasons and make up a lie about admissions which no one gave.

Yes the pistol was important after the assassination of Kennedy but not before. That is fact and he did not actually have opportunity to get both. Those are facts.

The fact that you lie about it proves you are simply a conspiracy FOOL who like the other imbeciles refuses to acknowledge evidence when it is in your face.

Okay, isn't the burden of proof on you to prove he did not actually have an opportunity to get both?

Prove it. We know he had enough money to take cabs/buses to all the places he needed to go to collect his arsenal. The mileage radius doesn't seem to be prohibitive so he had enough time. And clearly he had the motive as he proved after the assassination.

So I am saying he had means, motive and opportunity. Please prove that he did not.

Do you think you can do that? I'll let rightwinger --someone who agrees with you about the WC be the moderator to decide if your proof is valid.

We're not talking about anything other than your allegation that "he did not actually have opportunity to get both. Those are the facts".

Okay?

The floor is yours.

What proof?

That proof is that Oswald didn’t go get his pistol
The only conclusion you can draw is that it was not that important to him

 

[candycorn]

As I expected, our resident conspiracy theorists can come up with no evidence to support the OVERWHELMING evidence that Oswald acted alone

The best they can come up with is some unsupported theories an emojis from SLRAMSfan

By the same token, those who feel Oswald acted alone cannot explain why this killer didn't assemble his arsenal prior to killing Kennedy. They do laughingly attempt to dismiss the importance of it by magically transforming themselves into Oswald's mind and saying its wasn't important to LHO, he didn't have an opportunity (only to be forced to admit he did later) and so on and so fourth....yet somehow cannot explain why the physical evidence--no theory here--confirms that it WAS important enough for LHO to go get the gun AFTER the assassination and that he did have means, motive, and opportunity.

Does it mean he was part of some international conspiracy stretching from Moscow to Havana to Dallas? No.

Does it give any sober analyst pause to believe that there may be something more to the story than what has been uncovered? It should.

Neither the Warren Commission nor us who think there is more to the story have a slam dunk. We will never know the whole story.

Your analogy is a false equivalence.

There are many good reasons why he did not gather his rifle and pistol.

You simply are a liar who ignores these logical reasons and make up a lie about admissions which no one gave.

Yes the pistol was important after the assassination of Kennedy but not before. That is fact and he did not actually have opportunity to get both. Those are facts.

The fact that you lie about it proves you are simply a conspiracy FOOL who like the other imbeciles refuses to acknowledge evidence when it is in your face.

Okay, isn't the burden of proof on you to prove he did not actually have an opportunity to get both?

Prove it. We know he had enough money to take cabs/buses to all the places he needed to go to collect his arsenal. The mileage radius doesn't seem to be prohibitive so he had enough time. And clearly he had the motive as he proved after the assassination.

So I am saying he had means, motive and opportunity. Please prove that he did not.

Do you think you can do that? I'll let rightwinger --someone who agrees with you about the WC be the moderator to decide if your proof is valid.

We're not talking about anything other than your allegation that "he did not actually have opportunity to get both. Those are the facts".

Okay?

The floor is yours.

What proof?

That proof is that Oswald didn’t go get his pistol
The only conclusion you can draw is that it was not that important to him

He has to prove his thesis:

"he did not actually have opportunity to get both. Those are the facts”.

You can’t draw that conclusion because he went there after he assassinated the President.

But that isn’t what my challenge is about… It is about his proving his thesis. You and I constantly ask other conspiracy theorists to prove their allegations…right? Well, isn’t it fair to ask someone who makes a counter argument to prove his?

 

[candycorn]

Wrong jackass;.

We know he began to plan the assassination after noon on Nov 21st. This left him with half a day to make things happen. He had to do so without raising suspicion. Moving back and forth on public transportation would have raised his wife's suspicions and she knew he had a history of attempted murder. Transporting the rifle on public buses or cabs was not acceptable as it would raise attention. He had to get a ride to Ruth Payne's and stay there until he had an opportunity to retrieve the rifle and conceal it without his wife or Ruth Payne noticing and then wait for the ride back the next morning.

The pistol was unimportant until the assassination was over and he was on the run.

you are a liar and i have proven these facts to you overt and over.

Much like LARAM and Gipper you are too childish to admit facts but they are in your face and you have been ******* pwned.

Just grow the **** up you are defeated and you KNOW IT

"he did not actually have opportunity to get both. Those are the facts”.

That is what you have to prove. Please, the floor is yours.

Did he have the time? Yes
Did he have the means? Yes
Did he have the motive? Yes—at least he had such motive after the assassination.

I’m hoping you’ll tell us why you wrote: “he did not actually have opportunity to get both. Those are the facts”. If the argument (not proof—your theory) that it would draw attention…that is pretty lame. He was able to conceal it the next day when he got a ride. Certainly, one could wrap a blanket around it and ride in a cab.

You have “proven” nothing other than you will use profanity in place of proof.

 

[rightwinger]

As I expected, our resident conspiracy theorists can come up with no evidence to support the OVERWHELMING evidence that Oswald acted alone

The best they can come up with is some unsupported theories an emojis from SLRAMSfan

By the same token, those who feel Oswald acted alone cannot explain why this killer didn't assemble his arsenal prior to killing Kennedy. They do laughingly attempt to dismiss the importance of it by magically transforming themselves into Oswald's mind and saying its wasn't important to LHO, he didn't have an opportunity (only to be forced to admit he did later) and so on and so fourth....yet somehow cannot explain why the physical evidence--no theory here--confirms that it WAS important enough for LHO to go get the gun AFTER the assassination and that he did have means, motive, and opportunity.

Does it mean he was part of some international conspiracy stretching from Moscow to Havana to Dallas? No.

Does it give any sober analyst pause to believe that there may be something more to the story than what has been uncovered? It should.

Neither the Warren Commission nor us who think there is more to the story have a slam dunk. We will never know the whole story.

Your analogy is a false equivalence.

There are many good reasons why he did not gather his rifle and pistol.

You simply are a liar who ignores these logical reasons and make up a lie about admissions which no one gave.

Yes the pistol was important after the assassination of Kennedy but not before. That is fact and he did not actually have opportunity to get both. Those are facts.

The fact that you lie about it proves you are simply a conspiracy FOOL who like the other imbeciles refuses to acknowledge evidence when it is in your face.

Okay, isn't the burden of proof on you to prove he did not actually have an opportunity to get both?

Prove it. We know he had enough money to take cabs/buses to all the places he needed to go to collect his arsenal. The mileage radius doesn't seem to be prohibitive so he had enough time. And clearly he had the motive as he proved after the assassination.

So I am saying he had means, motive and opportunity. Please prove that he did not.

Do you think you can do that? I'll let rightwinger --someone who agrees with you about the WC be the moderator to decide if your proof is valid.

We're not talking about anything other than your allegation that "he did not actually have opportunity to get both. Those are the facts".

Okay?

The floor is yours.

What proof?

That proof is that Oswald didn’t go get his pistol
The only conclusion you can draw is that it was not that important to him

He has to prove his thesis:

"he did not actually have opportunity to get both. Those are the facts”.

You can’t draw that conclusion because he went there after he assassinated the President.

But that isn’t what my challenge is about… It is about his proving his thesis. You and I constantly ask other conspiracy theorists to prove their allegations…right? Well, isn’t it fair to ask someone who makes a counter argument to prove his?

You are getting obsessive

Nobody is claiming it was impossible for Oswald to get a pistol if he needed one. If it was absolutely essential for his plan to kill JFK he could have gone out and bought one on the morning of the 22nd

He didn’t. He proceeded with the assassination without a pistol. Proof that he did not consider it that important

 

[candycorn]

By the same token, those who feel Oswald acted alone cannot explain why this killer didn't assemble his arsenal prior to killing Kennedy. They do laughingly attempt to dismiss the importance of it by magically transforming themselves into Oswald's mind and saying its wasn't important to LHO, he didn't have an opportunity (only to be forced to admit he did later) and so on and so fourth....yet somehow cannot explain why the physical evidence--no theory here--confirms that it WAS important enough for LHO to go get the gun AFTER the assassination and that he did have means, motive, and opportunity.

Does it mean he was part of some international conspiracy stretching from Moscow to Havana to Dallas? No.

Does it give any sober analyst pause to believe that there may be something more to the story than what has been uncovered? It should.

Neither the Warren Commission nor us who think there is more to the story have a slam dunk. We will never know the whole story.

Your analogy is a false equivalence.

There are many good reasons why he did not gather his rifle and pistol.

You simply are a liar who ignores these logical reasons and make up a lie about admissions which no one gave.

Yes the pistol was important after the assassination of Kennedy but not before. That is fact and he did not actually have opportunity to get both. Those are facts.

The fact that you lie about it proves you are simply a conspiracy FOOL who like the other imbeciles refuses to acknowledge evidence when it is in your face.

Okay, isn't the burden of proof on you to prove he did not actually have an opportunity to get both?

Prove it. We know he had enough money to take cabs/buses to all the places he needed to go to collect his arsenal. The mileage radius doesn't seem to be prohibitive so he had enough time. And clearly he had the motive as he proved after the assassination.

So I am saying he had means, motive and opportunity. Please prove that he did not.

Do you think you can do that? I'll let rightwinger --someone who agrees with you about the WC be the moderator to decide if your proof is valid.

We're not talking about anything other than your allegation that "he did not actually have opportunity to get both. Those are the facts".

Okay?

The floor is yours.

What proof?

That proof is that Oswald didn’t go get his pistol
The only conclusion you can draw is that it was not that important to him

He has to prove his thesis:

"he did not actually have opportunity to get both. Those are the facts”.

You can’t draw that conclusion because he went there after he assassinated the President.

But that isn’t what my challenge is about… It is about his proving his thesis. You and I constantly ask other conspiracy theorists to prove their allegations…right? Well, isn’t it fair to ask someone who makes a counter argument to prove his?

You are getting obsessive

Nobody is claiming it was impossible for Oswald to get a pistol if he needed one. If it was absolutely essential for his plan to kill JFK he could have gone out and bought one on the morning of the 22nd

He didn’t. He proceeded with the assassination without a pistol. Proof that he did not consider it that important

Okay…that is a great discussion to have. I would ask what changed between that morning and 12:30 or so when he killed Kennedy then that made him all of the sudden “consider it important” then.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Your analogy is a false equivalence.

There are many good reasons why he did not gather his rifle and pistol.

You simply are a liar who ignores these logical reasons and make up a lie about admissions which no one gave.

Yes the pistol was important after the assassination of Kennedy but not before. That is fact and he did not actually have opportunity to get both. Those are facts.

The fact that you lie about it proves you are simply a conspiracy FOOL who like the other imbeciles refuses to acknowledge evidence when it is in your face.

Okay, isn't the burden of proof on you to prove he did not actually have an opportunity to get both?

Prove it. We know he had enough money to take cabs/buses to all the places he needed to go to collect his arsenal. The mileage radius doesn't seem to be prohibitive so he had enough time. And clearly he had the motive as he proved after the assassination.

So I am saying he had means, motive and opportunity. Please prove that he did not.

Do you think you can do that? I'll let rightwinger --someone who agrees with you about the WC be the moderator to decide if your proof is valid.

We're not talking about anything other than your allegation that "he did not actually have opportunity to get both. Those are the facts".

Okay?

The floor is yours.

What proof?

That proof is that Oswald didn’t go get his pistol
The only conclusion you can draw is that it was not that important to him

He has to prove his thesis:

"he did not actually have opportunity to get both. Those are the facts”.

You can’t draw that conclusion because he went there after he assassinated the President.

But that isn’t what my challenge is about… It is about his proving his thesis. You and I constantly ask other conspiracy theorists to prove their allegations…right? Well, isn’t it fair to ask someone who makes a counter argument to prove his?

You are getting obsessive

Nobody is claiming it was impossible for Oswald to get a pistol if he needed one. If it was absolutely essential for his plan to kill JFK he could have gone out and bought one on the morning of the 22nd

He didn’t. He proceeded with the assassination without a pistol. Proof that he did not consider it that important

Okay…that is a great discussion to have. I would ask what changed between that morning and 12:30 or so when he killed Kennedy then that made him all of the sudden “consider it important” then.

What changed is that he escaped the TSBD and had a chance to try and go on the run.

 

[rightwinger]

Your analogy is a false equivalence.

There are many good reasons why he did not gather his rifle and pistol.

You simply are a liar who ignores these logical reasons and make up a lie about admissions which no one gave.

Yes the pistol was important after the assassination of Kennedy but not before. That is fact and he did not actually have opportunity to get both. Those are facts.

The fact that you lie about it proves you are simply a conspiracy FOOL who like the other imbeciles refuses to acknowledge evidence when it is in your face.

Okay, isn't the burden of proof on you to prove he did not actually have an opportunity to get both?

Prove it. We know he had enough money to take cabs/buses to all the places he needed to go to collect his arsenal. The mileage radius doesn't seem to be prohibitive so he had enough time. And clearly he had the motive as he proved after the assassination.

So I am saying he had means, motive and opportunity. Please prove that he did not.

Do you think you can do that? I'll let rightwinger --someone who agrees with you about the WC be the moderator to decide if your proof is valid.

We're not talking about anything other than your allegation that "he did not actually have opportunity to get both. Those are the facts".

Okay?

The floor is yours.

What proof?

That proof is that Oswald didn’t go get his pistol
The only conclusion you can draw is that it was not that important to him

He has to prove his thesis:

"he did not actually have opportunity to get both. Those are the facts”.

You can’t draw that conclusion because he went there after he assassinated the President.

But that isn’t what my challenge is about… It is about his proving his thesis. You and I constantly ask other conspiracy theorists to prove their allegations…right? Well, isn’t it fair to ask someone who makes a counter argument to prove his?

You are getting obsessive

Nobody is claiming it was impossible for Oswald to get a pistol if he needed one. If it was absolutely essential for his plan to kill JFK he could have gone out and bought one on the morning of the 22nd

He didn’t. He proceeded with the assassination without a pistol. Proof that he did not consider it that important

Okay…that is a great discussion to have. I would ask what changed between that morning and 12:30 or so when he killed Kennedy then that made him all of the sudden “consider it important” then.

What changed was Oswald went from being an assassin to being a man on the run

Once he was on the run, he realized a pistol may be necessary

 

[candycorn]

Okay, isn't the burden of proof on you to prove he did not actually have an opportunity to get both?

Prove it. We know he had enough money to take cabs/buses to all the places he needed to go to collect his arsenal. The mileage radius doesn't seem to be prohibitive so he had enough time. And clearly he had the motive as he proved after the assassination.

So I am saying he had means, motive and opportunity. Please prove that he did not.

Do you think you can do that? I'll let rightwinger --someone who agrees with you about the WC be the moderator to decide if your proof is valid.

We're not talking about anything other than your allegation that "he did not actually have opportunity to get both. Those are the facts".

Okay?

The floor is yours.

What proof?

That proof is that Oswald didn’t go get his pistol
The only conclusion you can draw is that it was not that important to him

He has to prove his thesis:

"he did not actually have opportunity to get both. Those are the facts”.

You can’t draw that conclusion because he went there after he assassinated the President.

But that isn’t what my challenge is about… It is about his proving his thesis. You and I constantly ask other conspiracy theorists to prove their allegations…right? Well, isn’t it fair to ask someone who makes a counter argument to prove his?

You are getting obsessive

Nobody is claiming it was impossible for Oswald to get a pistol if he needed one. If it was absolutely essential for his plan to kill JFK he could have gone out and bought one on the morning of the 22nd

He didn’t. He proceeded with the assassination without a pistol. Proof that he did not consider it that important

Okay…that is a great discussion to have. I would ask what changed between that morning and 12:30 or so when he killed Kennedy then that made him all of the sudden “consider it important” then.

What changed was Oswald went from being an assassin to being a man on the run

Once he was on the run, he realized a pistol may be necessary

Would you call that poor planning?

 

[rightwinger]

What proof?

That proof is that Oswald didn’t go get his pistol
The only conclusion you can draw is that it was not that important to him

He has to prove his thesis:

"he did not actually have opportunity to get both. Those are the facts”.

You can’t draw that conclusion because he went there after he assassinated the President.

But that isn’t what my challenge is about… It is about his proving his thesis. You and I constantly ask other conspiracy theorists to prove their allegations…right? Well, isn’t it fair to ask someone who makes a counter argument to prove his?

You are getting obsessive

Nobody is claiming it was impossible for Oswald to get a pistol if he needed one. If it was absolutely essential for his plan to kill JFK he could have gone out and bought one on the morning of the 22nd

He didn’t. He proceeded with the assassination without a pistol. Proof that he did not consider it that important

Okay…that is a great discussion to have. I would ask what changed between that morning and 12:30 or so when he killed Kennedy then that made him all of the sudden “consider it important” then.

What changed was Oswald went from being an assassin to being a man on the run

Once he was on the run, he realized a pistol may be necessary

Would you call that poor planning?

Thank you

You are proving the point of this thread.......Oswald acted alone

Conspiracy involves the act of conspiring. Working with someone else to come up with a “plan”

Oswald found out about the JFK motorcade the day before while at work. His “plan” was simple.......I need to go home and get my rifle

Any conspiracy would have helped him do that. Give him access to something as simple as a car. Here, take my car and go home get your rifle then drive to your rooming house and get your pistol. Or even...Here is $200....Go out and buy a rifle and pistol

Oswald had none of that......proof he acted alone

 

[candycorn]

He has to prove his thesis:

"he did not actually have opportunity to get both. Those are the facts”.

You can’t draw that conclusion because he went there after he assassinated the President.

But that isn’t what my challenge is about… It is about his proving his thesis. You and I constantly ask other conspiracy theorists to prove their allegations…right? Well, isn’t it fair to ask someone who makes a counter argument to prove his?

You are getting obsessive

Nobody is claiming it was impossible for Oswald to get a pistol if he needed one. If it was absolutely essential for his plan to kill JFK he could have gone out and bought one on the morning of the 22nd

He didn’t. He proceeded with the assassination without a pistol. Proof that he did not consider it that important

Okay…that is a great discussion to have. I would ask what changed between that morning and 12:30 or so when he killed Kennedy then that made him all of the sudden “consider it important” then.

What changed was Oswald went from being an assassin to being a man on the run

Once he was on the run, he realized a pistol may be necessary

Would you call that poor planning?

Thank you

You are proving the point of this thread.......Oswald acted alone

Conspiracy involves the act of conspiring. Working with someone else to come up with a “plan”

Oswald found out about the JFK motorcade the day before while at work. His “plan” was simple.......I need to go home and get my rifle

Any conspiracy would have helped him do that. Give him access to something as simple as a car. Here, take my car and go home get our rifle then drive to your rooming house and get your pistol. Or even...Nere is $200....Go out and buy a rifle and pistol

Oswald had none of that......proof he acted alone

Think about the russian attacks on our election in 2016. The reason putin didn’t sign the checks to facebook was so that he can say, “who me” if someone started asking questions; as they are doing now. If the election got swayed…upside for Putin. If the election did not…the only thing ventured was the purchase of some facebook ads and utilization of an already robust hacking component of the russian intel apparatus. Essentially nothing. If the attempts to sway did work (and they did only due to the electoral college), maximum upside; a puppet in the Oval Office.

Your theory holds water if it’s someone equally invested as Oswald is. I agree.

In my theory, you have a putin-like actor who ventured little if anything. If Oswald, chickens out or misses; oh well. If Oswald delivers…maximum upside.

 

[candycorn]

Wrong jackass;.

We know he began to plan the assassination after noon on Nov 21st. This left him with half a day to make things happen. He had to do so without raising suspicion. Moving back and forth on public transportation would have raised his wife's suspicions and she knew he had a history of attempted murder. Transporting the rifle on public buses or cabs was not acceptable as it would raise attention. He had to get a ride to Ruth Payne's and stay there until he had an opportunity to retrieve the rifle and conceal it without his wife or Ruth Payne noticing and then wait for the ride back the next morning.

The pistol was unimportant until the assassination was over and he was on the run.

you are a liar and i have proven these facts to you overt and over.

Much like LARAM and Gipper you are too childish to admit facts but they are in your face and you have been ******* pwned.

Just grow the **** up you are defeated and you KNOW IT

"he did not actually have opportunity to get both. Those are the facts”.

That is what you have to prove. Please, the floor is yours.

Did he have the time? Yes
Did he have the means? Yes
Did he have the motive? Yes—at least he had such motive after the assassination.

I’m hoping you’ll tell us why you wrote: “he did not actually have opportunity to get both. Those are the facts”. If the argument (not proof—your theory) that it would draw attention…that is pretty lame. He was able to conceal it the next day when he got a ride. Certainly, one could wrap a blanket around it and ride in a cab.

You have “proven” nothing other than you will use profanity in place of proof.

The floor is mine and i wiped your face with it.

He had no time or means.

His motive was to shoot Kennedy and the pistol was unimportant for that.

Riding in a cap would have raised his wife's suspicions.

You are defeated and that is the end of that. Everytime you bring this up you are a proven liar who ignores facts.

You have no evidence and the burden is on you loser
'

“He had no time or means” sounds like he is saying it was “impossible” rightwinger

Has he proven that?

Well?