Tweet
HS,
If you cannot deal with points raised then there is little more I can do to develop an argument with you. You have been told repeatedly that many consider Oswald was not the assassin. Yet you continue to plough through all your well worn arguments as if that were the case your opponents were arguing (which they are not), then claim the arguments they never made are weak. It is becoming a travesty. I will respond to new points; not those contested unless you develop them past the level of assertions. I am a heavy smoker and averse to strawmen for fear of fires.
I, though a European, am well versed in the deterioration of American political discourse since 1963. It has fallen off a cliff in recent times sad to report. When a contributor on this site can write ‘two shooters dosnt (sic) mean a conspiracy’ then the coup d’etat of 1963 has clearly borne fruit.
If you could relate every Oswald ‘lie’ to a written or recorded statement made inside custody then a serious debate could begin. Unfortunately that was aborted by Fritz from the outset and then buried by Ruby. All you have is hearsay. There was no, and let us remember the enormity of this: there was was not only no record, there was no trial in the most outrageous assassination in the 20th century despite the suspect being in custody! Democracy is a hard business for sure, down Dallas way at least.
The parade route was negotiable until late. The Secret Service should have smelled a rat- the ramp over Main Street was hardly a problem that could not have been temporarily bridged (literally), allowing the motorcade to sail through to its destination avoiding the TSBD. They were sold a pup, presumably judging that the main threat came from the centre of the city.
If you cannot deal with points raised then there is little more I can do to develop an argument with you. You have been told repeatedly that many consider Oswald was not the assassin. Yet you continue to plough through all your well worn arguments as if that were the case your opponents were arguing (which they are not), then claim the arguments they never made are weak. It is becoming a travesty. I will respond to new points; not those contested unless you develop them past the level of assertions. I am a heavy smoker and averse to strawmen for fear of fires.
I, though a European, am well versed in the deterioration of American political discourse since 1963. It has fallen off a cliff in recent times sad to report. When a contributor on this site can write ‘two shooters dosnt (sic) mean a conspiracy’ then the coup d’etat of 1963 has clearly borne fruit.
If you could relate every Oswald ‘lie’ to a written or recorded statement made inside custody then a serious debate could begin. Unfortunately that was aborted by Fritz from the outset and then buried by Ruby. All you have is hearsay. There was no, and let us remember the enormity of this: there was was not only no record, there was no trial in the most outrageous assassination in the 20th century despite the suspect being in custody! Democracy is a hard business for sure, down Dallas way at least.
The parade route was negotiable until late. The Secret Service should have smelled a rat- the ramp over Main Street was hardly a problem that could not have been temporarily bridged (literally), allowing the motorcade to sail through to its destination avoiding the TSBD. They were sold a pup, presumably judging that the main threat came from the centre of the city.
Comment