BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963

[John Iacoletti]

The evidence has been around for public consumption for over 54 years and all that needs to be done is to read the WR, which is my source (along with the accompanying 26 volumes of hearings and exhibits).

When your "evidence" is "read the WR", then you have already lost the debate.

[Oscar Navarro]

And I can back up my theory with close reference to the testimony of the one who took LHO to work.

Your theory, on the other hand, requires you to disregard a key part of that testimony.

So I win on the terms you have just laid down.

Now!

I believe Mr Oswald had 27.5-inch-long curtain rods in the bag he brought.

Prove me wrong using something other than wishful thinking!

I don't use theory but facts. You, on the other hand, use your interpretation (not what he actually testified to) of what BWR testified  to present a counter-factual theory, in fact, it shouldn't even be called a theory. A much better word that explains what you're doing is to use conjecture. That is evident by your belief that Oswald had curtain rods in the bag. On top of that the burden of proof that Oswald had curtain rods in the bag is placed on me! Talk about having your cake and eating it too. The burden of proof is on you.

[Oscar Navarro]

Wow, are you taking strawman lessons from "Richard Smith"?

You could use some lessons in logical thinking from Richard Smith. The guy owns you.

[John Iacoletti]

I don't use theory but facts. You, on the other hand, use your interpretation (not what he actually testified to) of what BWR testified  to present a counter-factual theory, in fact, it shouldn't even be called a theory. A much better word that explains what you're doing is to use conjecture. That is evident by your belief that Oswald had curtain rods in the bag. On top of that the burden of proof that Oswald had curtain rods in the bag is placed on me! Talk about having your cake and eating it too. The burden of proof is on you.

...and your belief that Oswald had a rifle in his bag is not conjecture?

hmmm.......

[John Iacoletti]

You could use some lessons in logical thinking from Richard Smith. The guy owns you.

That really explains a lot about your ability to reason.   

[Oscar Navarro]

And apparently ignoring what else he said.

You're placing your trust on the least precise piece of BWF testimony.

[Oscar Navarro]

When your "evidence" is "read the WR", then you have already lost the debate.

Congratulations, JohnI. You'll be receiving a whoopee cushion in the mail.

[Oscar Navarro]

...and your belief that Oswald had a rifle in his bag is not conjecture?

hmmm.......

It's not a belief. You're confusing me with CTer MO. The circumstantial evidence that LHO brought C2766 inside CE-142 is so convincing that it passes the beyond all doubt test.