[Ben Holmes]

(08-14-2016, 11:26 AM)Patrick C Wrote:  I find the anti Castro Cuban conspiracy theory probably the most plausible of all of the popular conspiracy scenarios. However I find very little evidence if any, to place more than one shooter in the plaza. The location of the shooter was the 6th floor window and the MC was imo the murder weapon - certainly beyond reasonable doubt imo.

So you simply dismiss the fact that in the first two days - the overwhelming majority of witnesses pointed to the Grassy Knoll as the site of the shooter.

Just as Mark does, I suspect you simply dismiss those statements completely.

(08-14-2016, 11:26 AM)Patrick C Wrote:  I find it very difficult to accept that a lid could have been kept on a plot over the years and I think we would know now if Oswald had accomplices or indeed if he were framed.

Well, it's good that you find it difficult to believe. Fortunately, people HAVE talked... both before and after the assassination.

You can dismiss what they said if you want - but you can't deny that people have spoken of their participation in the assassination.

(08-14-2016, 11:26 AM)Patrick C Wrote:  Let us face it there are many dozens of people who claim to be behind the assasination - and almost all of them are lying even if there was a conspiracy...

A mere assertion on your part.

Fortunately, speculation simply cannot take the place of actual evidence.

(08-14-2016, 11:26 AM)Patrick C Wrote:  so we should not take any claim as genuine without supporting evidence and frankly there is non - the Mafia claims are not backed up with any concrete evidence, but there is some hint of suspicion over the FPFCC and the Mexico City trip.

If one were to base other things on the same standard, you'd be in the closet with Hoover - claiming that there was no such thing as the "Mafia" or organized crime. Where's the "concrete evidence?"

---

Back to what was said... despite the claims of people such as Patrick, that had this been a conspiracy - people would have talked... the sad fact is - MANY PEOPLE DID TALK!
 
And now that Patrick has admitted it, the requirement now is for "concrete evidence"...

Something he absolutely refuses to give to support his faith that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin.

P.S. Let's remember that Patrick is still refusing to retract his lie that the McAdams' tabulation of earwitnesses is "unassailable" - despite his admission that one witness is in the wrong category... Why is it so difficult for Patrick to admit that he went overboard on his characterization?