USPS workers screwing things up i.e..LHO receiving c2766

[Richard Smith]

I stopped because the debate had run it's course and frankly, I got bored with the incessant demands for answers. As for me misrepresenting things all you have to do is look at the facts without your obvious tilt to exonerate Oswald at all costs. That goes for your boyfriend JohnI. Your claims that you have no stake in Oswalds guilt or innocence would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.

You are wasting your time.  Like a couple of Inspector Clouseaus, they suspect everyone and suspect no one.  Of course it is much easier to be able to claim that you are not suggesting anything.  Just taking issuing with everything without ever having to connect the dots or make any sense of the direct implications of any of their nonsense having validity.  A defense attorney approach to raise false doubt for a stone cold guilty client.  Questionable in the legal context.  Lazy and dishonest in the context of discussing a case more than fifty years after the fact.

[John Iacoletti]

You are wasting your time.  Like a couple of Inspector Clouseaus, they suspect everyone and suspect no one.  Of course it is much easier to be able to claim that you are not suggesting anything.  Just taking issuing with everything without ever having to connect the dots or make any sense of the direct implications of any of their nonsense having validity.  A defense attorney approach to raise false doubt for a stone cold guilty client.  Questionable in the legal context.  Lazy and dishonest in the context of discussing a case more than fifty years after the fact.

You know what?s lazy and dishonest? Using prosecuting attorney rhetoric to claim that there is this ?mountain of evidence? for somebody?s guilt while avoiding ever enumerating or examining that evidence other than by lying about it or spinning it, or making up ridiculous strawman arguments to avoid ever having to actually support your own position.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

I stopped because the debate had run it's course and frankly, I got bored with the incessant demands for answers. As for me misrepresenting things all you have to do is look at the facts without your obvious tilt to exonerate Oswald at all costs. That goes for your boyfriend JohnI. Your claims that you have no stake in Oswalds guilt or innocence would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.

I cannot think of - or even imagine - another historic event of any note where participants in discussing or debating what happened engage in the type of reasoning that some of the Oswald defenders do.

Frankly, I have more respect for the Walter Cakebread types who largely agree that there is evidence of Oswald's complicity in this matter but insist that the evidence has been faked or planted or altered or staged. Or that Oswald's strange behavior - which he admits to - was part of him being directed or controlled by others. Okay, he admits "it's" there but denies "it's" authenticity.

But to argue that the evidence exists in a sort of twilight zone - it exists but it doesn't, it's not real but it's not faked, it's there but not there - is remarkable. It's been more than half a century; we will not learn anything new. We have to sift through what we have, put together what we think happened, consider alternatives and make a judgment. Demanding more evidence, more this and that is a dodge.

[John Iacoletti]

I cannot think of - or even imagine - another historic event of any note where anyone would form a definitive conclusion on such a small amount of circumstantial evidence that is all questionable, arguable, impeachable, or tainted in some way

[Walt Cakebread]

If  the 5 foot 9 inch, Lee Oswald had placed the carcano on the floor beneath the pallet stacked with boxes of books he would have had to have laid down on top of the rows of boxes.   The rifle was found by Deputy Boone 15 feet 4 inches south of the north wall or about 5 feet south of the aisle at the top of the stairs.   Lee Oswald could not have reached across that 5 foot span and placed the rifle down on the floor behind boxes that were stacked four feet high.

Does anybody understand what this information reveals?

[Richard Smith]

I cannot think of - or even imagine - another historic event of any note where participants in discussing or debating what happened engage in the type of reasoning that some of the Oswald defenders do.

Frankly, I have more respect for the Walter Cakebread types who largely agree that there is evidence of Oswald's complicity in this matter but insist that the evidence has been faked or planted or altered or staged. Or that Oswald's strange behavior - which he admits to - was part of him being directed or controlled by others. Okay, he admits "it's" there but denies "it's" authenticity.

But to argue that the evidence exists in a sort of twilight zone - it exists but it doesn't, it's not real but it's not faked, it's there but not there - is remarkable. It's been more than half a century; we will not learn anything new. We have to sift through what we have, put together what we think happened, consider alternatives and make a judgment. Demanding more evidence, more this and that is a dodge.

The contrarian motto: "I believe everything and I believe nothing. I suspect everyone and I suspect no one." 

There is a pathetic desire to be relevant or garner attention by taking a contrarian stance to the obvious conclusions drawn from the mountain of evidence.  It is, however, just a lazy and dishonest approach that implicitly acknowledges the strength of the case against Oswald.  To argue over and over and over again that all evidence against Oswald is suspect, the product of outright fakery or lies, but deny not only that such evidence would have to be faked by a variety of different folks from many walks of life (including often random citizens i.e. the liars) or that they are even suggesting a conspiracy is Alice-in-Wonderland logic.  I have more respect for the loons who at least have the courage to openly advocate a conspiracy belief over those that hide behind the crooked fa?ade of trying to have it both ways to avoid ever having to take any position that requires support or explanation. 

[Martin Weidmann]

The contrarian motto: "I believe everything and I believe nothing. I suspect everyone and I suspect no one." 

There is a pathetic desire to be relevant or garner attention by taking a contrarian stance to the obvious conclusions drawn from the mountain of evidence.  It is, however, just a lazy and dishonest approach that implicitly acknowledges the strength of the case against Oswald.  To argue over and over and over again that all evidence against Oswald is suspect, the product of outright fakery or lies, but deny not only that such evidence would have to be faked by a variety of different folks from many walks of life (including often random citizens i.e. the liars) or that they are even suggesting a conspiracy is Alice-in-Wonderland logic.  I have more respect for the loons who at least have the courage to openly advocate a conspiracy belief over those that hide behind the crooked fa?ade of trying to have it both ways to avoid ever having to take any position that requires support or explanation.

The king of strawman arguments strikes again....

Nobody I know is trying to "have it both ways". Some less gullible only require that those proclaiming Oswald's guilt back it up with credible and conclusive evidence (which btw is not the same as so-called "logical common sense conclusions) before reaching a conclusion.

What Richard would like is that one first presents a conclusion (probably based on speculation) so that he can easily attack it using the questionable, tained and unreliable evidence he constantly refers to as a "mountain of evidence", which btw seems to be a mountain which can only be seen by those zealots who believe rather than enquire.

[John Iacoletti]

To argue over and over and over again that all evidence against Oswald is suspect, the product of outright fakery or lies,

Nobody argues that, ?Richard?, that?s your strawman.

You can?t even specify what this ?mountain of evidence? is without lying about it.