As for Oswald, the simple mechanics of the shooting could not have been performed by Oswald. He was a poor shot when he was in the military. If you believe the Oswald scenario, then you have to believe that he fired two shots in less time than it takes to re-cycle the rifle they alleged he used. Simply impossible. In order to believe the Oswald scenario, you have to put your head up your ass and hope no one points out facts to you.
That seems to be a modus operandi for you.
If you do, however, believe the Oswald scenario, then could you explain how he got from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor lunchroom without being seen by the two women on the stairs? And why would he buy a coke and show a reporter where a phone was on the way out of the building? Did he want to get caught?
You are so willing to take the word of the government. Why is that?
The problem with this conspiracy theory is that the critics are in the same position as the creationists are vis a vis evolution: sure, you can make (sometimes valid) criticisms of the accepted theory, but at the end of the day the there's still no evidence in support of
your theory.
I was a Kennedy assassination buff for decades, and I've probably read every significant work on the subject available. And here is my conclusion: while the Warren Report is indeed flawed, and leaves a number of matters unexplained, it still offers the best explanation of the facts based on the available evidence. And here is the available evidence: a.) you have Oswald placed on the 6th floor of the Texas Schoolbook Depository at the appropriate time. b.) you have evidence establishing Oswald was the owner of the weapon from which the shots were fired. c.) no ammunition other than that fired from Oswald's rifle has been recovered from the murder scene to date. d.) You have an autopsy which indicates Kennedy was shot from a position accessable from Oswald's vantage point.
Yes, the autopsy could be faked, alternate ammunition could have been recovered and destroyed, witnesses might be lying or mistaken. The problem is that, to date, no hard evidence has surfaced indicating that to be the case. You have a theory like David Lifton's "Best Evidence", which presents a plausible explanation for what
might have happened, but there's no supporting evidence indicating that such a scenario
did happen.
Even the Warren Commisson acknowledged that they couldn't rule out a conspiracy. They simply stated they found no evidence to support one.
Whether or not there was a conspiracy involved, until contrary evidence emerges, I'm prepared to accept that Oswald was indeed the assassin, based on the physical evidence available. I accept the government explaination for the simple reason that no one has yet offered a better one. When they do, and they can back it up with hard evidence, I'm prepared to change my position.