General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Those who demand that everyone "just ACCEPT that Oswald did it"... [View all]stopbush
(24,398 posts)of the kind of BS the fact-based community has to deal with when CTists like yourself present your "facts."
First, you state that the test was negative. That's a lie. Only one of the tests was negative. You either didn't know there were tests done on Oswald's hands which were positive - which demonstrates ignorance of the evidence in the case on your part - or, you did know that there were positive tests on his hands but failed to mention that in your post - which shows a selective citing of the evidence to support your "point," whatever that was.
So, what was it, Ace? Ignorance or telling a half truth? I don't know which one is worse.
Overriding all this is the fact that - as I pointed out - the FBI back in 1963 had already discounted paraffin tests as being reliable, which means that your citing the paraffin tests in Oswald's case is entirely meaningless from the standpoint of proving innocence or guilt. Yet here your are again, going back to the paraffin tests as if they do prove something, only this time, you're trying to discount their incriminating Oswald because the "positive was on his palms, not the back of his hands."
So fucking what?
As far as what Oswald may or may not have done were he an intelligent agent ordered to kill JFK: you're welcome to bloviate about hypothetical situations as much as you wish. Of course, you'll never stop to consider that as an agent, Oswald could have just said "no" to the whole thing. But that would lead you down the rabbit hole of having to determine why he didn't say no, and in the process of making that determination, the gild is going to come off the Oswald lily in short order, leaving you with a very unsympathetic and cold-blooded killer. And that puts Oswald's labeling of himself as a patsy in the unctuous realm of self-serving spinelessness.