The preponderance of the evidence

[Alan Ford]

So you?re more than willing to accept a claim made with no supporting evidence until somebody proves the claim false?

I have an invisible pet dragon named Charles. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that he is not as I describe?

Not to preempt Mr Collins's response, Mr Iacoletti, but I wish to state that, having considered your claim in an honest, fair and objective manner, and with an open mind, I have come to the conclusion that you are a very cruel man to keep an invisible dragon as a domestic pet. For shame, sir!

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

Many years ago I began pursuing my interest in the JFK assassination conspiracy theories by reading quite a few books by, you guessed it, conspiracy theorists. For a long time I was convinced that there just HAD to be a conspiracy. But there wasn't any conspiracy theory that had any credible evidence to support it. All there seemed to be was conjecture and innuendo. One book would claim that LBJ was behind the assassination, another book would claim JEH was the mastermind, and so on. I learned way more than I wanted to know about LBJ, JEH, the oil tycoons, etc. But no credible evidence that would support any of the theories. I was left with a big question mark asking which conspiracy theory was the right one. One day I decided to start fresh with an open mind. I decided that learning more about the evidence that the official investigation turned up was a good starting point. Because all I had learned about the evidence from all the conspiracy books was biased against the official investigation's findings and tried to discredit them. A look at the other side of the controversy (with an open mind) seemed to be the next logical step in my pursuit to know more. So I read the official report and a few books from authors who supported it. What I found was that the preponderance of the evidence points directly at LHO. This was more than just the conjecture and innuendo that I was used to seeing. The preponderance of the evidence is actually overwhelming. The arguments that try to discredit the evidence no longer made sense, but I still try to look for any evidence of a conspiracy with an open mind. That is why I continue to show up here from time to time.

You either believe LHO is responsible or you don't? 

The preponderance of the evidence

You can not apply the burden of proof, a preponderance of the evidence  to what is a criminal case.  Oswald cannot be found kind of guilty this is not a civil case

[Charles Collins]

You either believe LHO is responsible or you don't? 

The preponderance of the evidence

You can not apply the burden of proof, a preponderance of the evidence  to what is a criminal case.  Oswald cannot be found kind of guilty this is not a civil case

to what is a criminal case

There will never be a criminal case brought against LHO. Jack Ruby made sure of that.

[Charles Collins]

A partial palm print on an index card was matched to Oswald, and this convinces you of what, exactly?

We are discussing a lack of evidence of LHO being a patsy. Are you trying to change the subject?

[Charles Collins]

So you?re more than willing to accept a claim made with no supporting evidence until somebody proves the claim false?

I have an invisible pet dragon named Charles. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that he is not as I describe?

Does your invisible dragon help you with your invisible evidence?

[Charles Collins]

No.. like a true LN you simply did not like the implication

The implication suggests that something sinister could have happened with this item. No credible evidence that it did happen. Are you claiming that something sinister DID happen?

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

to what is a criminal case

There will never be a criminal case brought against LHO. Jack Ruby made sure of that.

So you are then going to use a preponderance of the evidence as your flimsy burden of proof. You could be honest by telling everyone you are a Lone nut believer instead of posing as Mr. Independent. Don't kid yourself. Hey, if you are ever called to jury duty, I can assure you they won't need you and you will be relieved of your duty

[Charles Collins]

So you are then going to use a preponderance of the evidence as your flimsy burden of proof. You could be honest by telling everyone you are a Lone nut believer instead of posing as Mr. Independent. Don't kid yourself. Hey, if you are ever called to jury duty, I can assure you they won't need you and you will be relieved of your duty

Are you just going to criticize something that is irrelevant?