# The case against Lee H. Oswald **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 24, 2023, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643 "2023-11-24T18:35:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 269
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2023, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643/269 "2023-11-29T21:04:56Z")
Moderating: > [@slicedalone](#): > > Sure, whatever you say. > [@slicedalone](#): > > What, you think people were lax because no one thought at the time that this case might be some sort of big deal, historically? > [@slicedalone](#): > > “Captain, I want to confess to murdering the president.” > > “Yeah, well, ya jus’ did. We can do all the writin’ up and cipherin’ later, I guess. Now it’s another beating for you–evabuddy gets four, you’re no one special, Oswald. Whataya think, we got stenographers and writin’ paper up the yin-ying around here or somethin’?–we gonna treat ya like we do everyone, just accusations, a little cussin’ and them four beatings.” > [@slicedalone](#): > > Kinda strange that these notes just went missing on their own, innit? > [@slicedalone](#): > > I think it might be interesting if people like me would concede the strongest non-conspiracy explanations of the JFK murder and if the “one lone nut” nuts would concede the more dubious assertions of that thesis. This way, you just have both sides displaying more unbridled contempt for each other than is warranted on either side. > [@slicedalone](#): > > If you need something more tangible (the Stone documentary is on HBO all week–watching it wouldn’t kill you. A flesh wound, maybe.) > [@slicedalone](#): > > Just trying to show what can happen when you don’t record what people are saying, and rely on your own after-the-fact “transcriptions.” Kinda results in self-serving people just making things up. > [@slicedalone](#): > > Phrased slightly differently, “notes were taken, but some of them contradict what we wanted them to say, so we wrote what they should have said, and tossed the originals into the flames.” > [@slicedalone](#): > > It’s quite unfair to imply that they were all completely illiterate. Please reconsider the extremity of your post. > [@slicedalone](#): > > Has anyone answered the matter of the screwed-up times in the chain of custody, for example? If so, who? Is there an explanation, or does this apparent impossibility just get filed under “Oh, well, who knows? And who cares—it’s just a bullet, anyway”? > [@slicedalone](#): > > Oh, you found it unconvincing–wow, well, that certainly makes a powerful case. You’ve completely blown me out of the water with that argument. Kudos to you! I certainly can never dare to refer to it as a documentary after reading that. Thanks! > [@slicedalone](#): > > But I am grateful for your pledge not to go further in this discussion. You seem to have nothing to contribute other than your opinion, which I will take for what it’s worth. > [@slicedalone](#): > > Yeah, because it wasn’t important or anything, just your routine chain of custody in a presidential assassination that happened earlier today. Happens to me all the time. > [@slicedalone](#): > > If that’s your best strategy going forward, why should I supply this entire string for you? You can just dismiss all of them unseen in advance–save us all a lot of time. > > P.S. You missed your first move, which is to challenge me to produce the actual document, and then to challenge its authenticity. Stick to the playbook, please. > [@slicedalone](#): > > As opposed to what? The droolings of a rabid raccoon? > [@slicedalone](#): > > So the more nonsense I point out in the WC Report, the more unassailable their case gets? That’s really excellent work there, first-class logic. > [@slicedalone](#): > > The important thing is the facts all add up to one simple narrative, amirite, fellas? > [@slicedalone](#): > > Uh, I don’t work for you. Not sure where you got the idea that I’ll jump when you say “Frog.” > [@slicedalone](#): > > “Nah nah, na na, NAH na” is not a great debate. > [@slicedalone](#): > > The crucial difference being that I have very few worshipers declaring my writing to be reliable, and certainly none in this thread, while the WC Report seems to have a surfeit of admirers, worshipers, and fanboys attesting to its truthfulness and reliability. > [@slicedalone](#): > > Only if you ask nicely. > [@slicedalone](#): > > Those few of the faithful who will admit to any errors seem to insist that the WC’s errors are evidence of their humanity, their authenticity, their non-North Korean bona fides. > [@slicedalone](#): > > Or maybe you’re a patsy who doesn’t know that he’s being used by people who know the records won’t be checked for months and months if ever and that apologists will come along to insist that these errors in the record are mere typos, absent-mindedness, or inexplicable problems that don’t really matter much? > [@slicedalone](#): > > If there were a plausible way for the WC to explain the assassination as JFK deciding in mid-parade to shoot himself in the head and back, they would have gone for that, and some of you defenders would be insisting that we really couldn’t see what happened in those seconds JFK was hidden from sight behind that street sign, now, could we? > [@slicedalone](#): > > I am not responsible for explaining every discrepancy in the Warren Commission Report. I am a consumer of the WC Report, and I am dissatisfied with the shoddy product. You are your daddy’s Customer Service department and your job is to discredit my complaints, as you see it, but to my mind, your job is to check out how the plastic got inside the chicken and why you sold me a chicken that was rotten. The customer is always right. > [@slicedalone](#): > > Talk about your straw man!!! > [@slicedalone](#): > > You might. My idea about Kennedy committing suicide while he was behind the sign for two seconds also might be correct. @slicedalone, your posts continue to drip sarcasm, snark and a perennially insulting tone. This is not what we strive for in Great Debates. You have been warned and suspended for this behavior several times. Yet it continues. You seem unwilling to learn the lesson. Further, if you are not prepared to offer citations and evidence for the positions you take, you have no place in the discussion. If what is being discussed is and can only be speculative in nature, accept that, acknowledge it and demonstrate a modicum of civility in the discussion, because you have no better argument than anyone else in the debate. This thread is closed until I can discuss further sanctions with moderation staff. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643)._