pajasa62 (Tuesday 4th of November 2008 06:40:17 PM)

"They are also not supposed to conceal evidence for almost 40 years, that indicates a suspect's innocence." Typical statement I would expect...seriously, what evidence? Oswald REALLY like going to the movies? Oswald always handed his guns to other people? The CTers don't accept anything less than FILM of Oswald shooting JFK, but have this "luxury" picking through, EXCLUDING and then choosing anything that seems beneficial (any demands of certainty for their OWN theories need not apply).

pajasa62 (Tuesday 4th of November 2008 08:49:08 AM)

"I haven't suggested conspiracy." I find that hard to believe. One of my "things" is that if you look at all the people that would have to be involved in the plotting, the multiple shooters, the number of people it would take, not just to pull that off, but more importantly to MAINTAIN the "Oswald did it alone" and the COVERUP of endless angles (media, teams of doctors, etc, even a Western Union employee, & other minutia) and the people to RECRUIT them, it becomes too unmanagable.

TrueNovice (Tuesday 4th of November 2008 09:55:03 AM)

So, there couldn't be a conspiracy because it would be soon exposed by the media and law enforcement. That's why today we have no illicit drug trade in the USA, it would involve to many people to have illegal distribution to all the cities and neighborhoods in America. That's why Jimmy Hoffa's body was soon found, the media broke the case. Wow, you got me there.

pajasa62 (Tuesday 4th of November 2008 10:59:32 AM)

That was a pitiful way to "prove " a point! (as if you had something to begin with.) Let me ask you a question. How many people do you think it took to make this conspiracy work? 4 or 5? 10? But why bother answering? You can't confront any of the threshold issues that would make Oswald doing it alone not possible, unless your to exclude tons of facts and cherrypick witnesses that couldn't give the same story twice.

TrueNovice (Tuesday 4th of November 2008 12:17:37 PM)

I think you have it backwards, they are supposed to prove a persons guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not offer 4 or 5 theories of his guilt. They are also not supposed to conceal evidence for almost 40 years, that indicates a suspect's innocence. Or promote a bullet composition test as valid, years after hey have concluded know it's junk science.

TrueNovice (Tuesday 4th of November 2008 09:59:48 AM)

Dr. Hume for instance told the HSCA medical panel point blank that the photos did not depict JFK's body as he remembered it. He disputed the moving of the wound location as described in the autopsy report. While protesting in the closed medical hearings, he did not make an issue of it publicly. Dr. Finck in fact testified at the Shaw trial that non medical military officials actually directed and controlled the autopsy. So, really not much of a coverup.

pajasa62 (Tuesday 4th of November 2008 11:11:05 AM)

Yeah, that's why after 2 years of studying the case the HSCA concluded that Oswald fired the shot through the throat and the head shot. Unfortunately for them they got painted into a corner by their own so-called experts that never defended their acoustic static nonsense after it was disproven on 3 SEPERATE points of evidence by multiple studies inclusing the Nat'l Academy of Sciences and independent studies. Care to read the points of evidence that weren't defendable?

TrueNovice (Tuesday 4th of November 2008 12:01:05 PM)

Insofar, as they could be considered investigations, I agree the HSCA was probably a worse than the Warren Comm. They were both politically motivated rush jobs with compromised personnel. 6 months was about all the HSCA did "investigating." You actually need to read the testimony rather than the politically motivated conclusions or reports. I would start with the police who were actually in or around the motorcade. The medical evidence is a mess and no conclusion can be reached about it.

pajasa62 (Tuesday 4th of November 2008 08:31:01 AM)

That's the beauty of the conspiracy theorist, all they need is listen to a 2 minute Youtube clip with scary music in the background and a narrator with a British voice or something and EVERYTHING becomes "fact"...anytime someone sneezes...Conspiracy! Tell me about these police notes that corroborate Oswald's alibi (as if he had an alibi!) The conspiracy theorists argument has degenerated so badly, what do they do? photoshop pictures to support there claim (eg. Harris altering Zapruder frame)

TrueNovice (Tuesday 4th of November 2008 08:38:59 AM)

Who said anything about British documentaries or photo shopping photos? I think your living in an alternative universe. You have settled on the lone assassin and your upset that the facts don't back up your theories. Calm down.