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

[Bill Chapman]

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

Freeman does

[Bill Chapman]

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.

rather than enquire

There you go again
The CT cop-out 'just asking questions' thing.

Also known as JAQing off: Making outrageous claims and then avoiding having to prove anything by claiming you are 'just asking questions'. Highly popular amongst consiracy-mongers of all stripes.

[Martin Weidmann]

rather than enquire

There you go again
The CT cop-out 'just asking questions' thing.

Also known as JAQing off: Making outrageous claims and then avoiding having to prove anything by claiming you are 'just asking questions'. Highly popular amongst consiracy-mongers of all stripes.

LNs that constantly complain about questions being asked and opinions being challenged are the same LNs who constantly are unable to answer those questions.

[Richard Smith]

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.

Great.  That means you will finally gives us some straightforward answers for once.  The evidence of Oswald's ownership of the MC rifle (documents, photos, prints).  Genuine or the product of fakery and lies? Again, don't avoid answering by jumping ahead to whether Oswald's ownership of the rifle proves he pulled the trigger.   Just was he sent a specific MC rifle and have that rifle in his possession as demonstrated by the mountain of documents, photos, prints etc or not?  If not, who faked all this evidence since it comes from a variety of different sources?   We await an answer that doesn't try to "have it both ways." 

[Martin Weidmann]

Great.  That means you will finally gives us some straightforward answers for once.  The evidence of Oswald's ownership of the MC rifle (documents, photos, prints).  Genuine or the product of fakery and lies? Again, don't avoid answering by jumping ahead to whether Oswald's ownership of the rifle proves he pulled the trigger.   Just was he sent a specific MC rifle and have that rifle in his possession as demonstrated by the mountain of documents, photos, prints etc or not?  If not, who faked all this evidence since it comes from a variety of different sources?   We await an answer that doesn't try to "have it both ways."

I say again;

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.

[Richard Smith]

I say again;

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.

I'm sure glad Martin is not trying to have it both ways and answered my question about whether the evidence of Oswald's ownership of the MC rifle was genuine or not.  My "conclusion" was in the form of a simple question to Martin and referenced documents, photos, prints, witness testimony etc.  The type of material commonly known as "evidence."  A contrarian wants to imply all this evidence is suspect but without acknowledging the obvious absurdity of taking that position by somehow suggesting it is "speculation."  How about going through the individual pieces of evidence that link Oswald to a MC rifle and letting us know which are genuine and which are fake?  His prints on the rifle, for example?  Genuine or fake?  The order form in Hidell's name?  Genuine to Oswald or forged?  The Hidell ID that links him to the alias used to order the rifle?  Oswald's or planted on him?  The BY photos. Genuine or fake?  Documentation from Klein's?  Genuine or fake?  All of that is evidence or collectively a mountain of evidence.  There is nothing speculative about whether it is sufficient to prove that Oswald ordered and was sent a specific MC rifle (the same one found on the 6th floor with the same serial number).  If it is genuine, then it demonstrates that Oswald ordered and received a specific rifle.  The only alternative is that it is all faked.  So which is it?

[Martin Weidmann]

I'm sure glad Martin is not trying to have it both ways and answered my question about whether the evidence of Oswald's ownership of the MC rifle was genuine or not.  My "conclusion" was in the form of a simple question to Martin and referenced documents, photos, prints, witness testimony etc.  The type of material commonly known as "evidence."  A contrarian wants to imply all this evidence is suspect but without acknowledging the obvious absurdity of taking that position by somehow suggesting it is "speculation."  How about going through the individual pieces of evidence that link Oswald to a MC rifle and letting us know which are genuine and which are fake?  His prints on the rifle, for example?  Genuine or fake?  The order form in Hidell's name?  Genuine to Oswald or forged?  The Hidell ID that links him to the alias used to order the rifle?  Oswald's or planted on him?  The BY photos. Genuine or fake?  Documentation from Klein's?  Genuine or fake?  All of that is evidence or collectively a mountain of evidence.  There is nothing speculative about whether it is sufficient to prove that Oswald ordered and was sent a specific MC rifle (the same one found on the 6th floor with the same serial number).  If it is genuine, then it demonstrates that Oswald ordered and received a specific rifle.  The only alternative is that it is all faked.  So which is it?

My "conclusion" was in the form of a simple question to Martin and referenced documents, photos, prints, witness testimony etc. 

Whoever said anything about your "conclusion"?

The type of material commonly known as "evidence."

And the type question that's commonly known as a loaded question

Even more so as you have already indicated the conclusion you want to read;

All of that is evidence or collectively a mountain of evidence.  There is nothing speculative about whether it is sufficient to prove that Oswald ordered and was sent a specific MC rifle (the same one found on the 6th floor with the same serial number). If it is genuine, then it demonstrates that Oswald ordered and received a specific rifle.  The only alternative is that it is all faked.  So which is it?

Which of course is the usual hyperbole that is in fact nothing more than your opinion.

[Bill Chapman]

LNs that constantly complain about questions being asked and opinions being challenged are the same LNs who constantly are unable to answer those questions.

Point out where any LNer has complained about questions being asked.
Perhaps most CTer questions being asked are seen by LNers as just plain dumb, adolescent & pointless

CTer blanket dismissal (see what I did there? Another twofer*) of all evidence as being faked, planted, or altered is not going garner any respect from us sheeple.

Still waiting for your shooter & conspiracy to show up
What... too soon?

*The hits just keep on comin'


Bill Chapman
Hunter of Trolls