[Ben Holmes]

Bud Wrote:The fact is that most of the people who have appointed themselves to look into this matter display precious little skill in doing so. It is a simple thing to determine that Oswald killed Kennedy, it is a conclusion that is both obvious and on firm ground. When someone not only can't determine that Oswald killed Kennedy, but spends all their time concocting ways to try to undermine that firm ground it becomes apparent very quickly that they are only playing silly games. 

This is the sort of nonsensical claptrap that defines Warren Commission believers nowadays. Just for the sheer enjoyment, I'll take it apart:

"The fact is that most of the people who have appointed themselves to look into this matter display precious little skill in doing so."

As, of course, you're demonstrating. No citations, no examples, no evidence - merely speculative opinion based on nothing whatsoever.

"It is a simple thing to determine that Oswald killed Kennedy, it is a conclusion that is both obvious and on firm ground."

If it actually were a simple thing - then believers wouldn't be so deathly afraid of knowledgeable critics. For example, right here in this forum I've been taking apart Vincent Bugliosi's best evidence for the Warren Commission's theory - and there aren't any believers around to defend Bugliosi.

Not because they simply don't care - they cannot defend Bugliosi because his assertions are simply indefensible. So where's this "firm ground" that "Bud" asserts - yet can't demonstrate? Why is it that believers such as "Bud" are constantly making claims that they cannot support?

It's no surprise that I'm constantly labeling believers as dishonest and cowardly - they keep proving this on a daily basis. While I can answer, and CREDIBLY so, any question posed on the evidence by a believer - the opposite simply isn't true. Even when they promise to answer (as Patrick Collins did) - they end up running away.

"When someone not only can't determine that Oswald killed Kennedy, but spends all their time concocting ways to try to undermine that firm ground it becomes apparent very quickly that they are only playing silly games."

What "Bud" fails to acknowledge, is that there's no particular reason on the part of critics to label Oswald innocent. It would matter NOT AT ALL to hold that he's guilty as sin, and pulled the trigger. If he pulled the trigger while others were also pulling their triggers - IT'S STILL A CONSPIRACY.

So why do so many critics defend Oswald?

It's not the critics doing so... it's the EVIDENCE that shows him to be innocent. It's the EVIDENCE that shows he was framed.

If this were such a simple case as "Bud" implies, then there's no reason for the classification of so much of the evidence... take, for example; the medical testimony that was classified by the HSCA - "Bud" can't supply any possible and credible non-conspiratorial reason for its classification.

He will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to offer any reason, since he's well aware that anything he might offer will be quickly shown to be nothing but nonsense.

So in addition to being an example of poor logic, "Bud's" statement shows him to be a coward as well - since he'll absolutely refuse to defend it.