The preponderance of the evidence

[John Iacoletti]

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?

There?s that magic word ?credible? again that means whatever you want it to mean.

I can do that too:  no credible evidence that Oswald was the one who shot Kennedy.

[John Iacoletti]

The WC conclusions are what we have. It is your prerogative to disagree with them. At one time I did also.

Lots of people have made conclusions. What?s so special about the WC ones?

But the WC conclusions haven?t changed, so what specifically made you stop disagreeing?

[Martin Weidmann]

So you are trying to get me to argue against some hypothetical sinister activity that you have no credible evidence of and don?t claim actually happened. And you wonder why I told you up front that I wasn?t interested in arguing the same old arguments that have been argued for over 55 years now.

So you are trying to get me to argue against some hypothetical sinister activity that you have no credible evidence of and don?t claim actually happened.

No, I am not trying to get you to argue against anything. There is no need to do that as you are in fact already doing so by refusing to accept that it is a possibility which can not be ruled out.


And you wonder why I told you up front that I wasn?t interested in arguing the same old arguments that have been argued for over 55 years now.

I don't wonder about that at all. It's pretty obvious that you are not interested in discussing the evidence because you probably understand the weakness of those arguments.

[Bill Chapman]

Lots of people have made conclusions. What?s so special about the WC ones?

Tell us how many of your 'lots of people' conducted 25,000 interviews

[Martin Weidmann]

Tell us how many of your 'lots of people' conducted 25,000 interviews

Are you saying that the conclusions of the WC are somehow better simply because they interviewed more people?

[Walt Cakebread]

A partial palm print that nobody knew about that just shows up a week later on an index card is evidence of framing.

The partial palm print (CE 639) was released to the FBI at midnight 11/22/63.....  It was examined in the FBI lab in Washington DC on Saturday 11/23/63, and it was reported as being useless for ID purposes.   

After the conspirators realized they had no solid evidence against Lee Oswald they realized that they needed to have evidence to back up their case and support Henry Wades bold lie . Henry Wade had told reporters that they had found Lee Oswald's prints on the gun...But Wade was simply lying.   

Thus Hoover had the evidence sent back to Dallas so they could slip the palm print into the evidence stream.and manipulate the evidence of the arrest shirt.  ......

Some folks simply cannot understand ( or refuse to believe) that J.Edgar Hoover was THE king pin in the coup d e'tat......

[Charles Collins]

There?s that magic word ?credible? again that means whatever you want it to mean.

I can do that too:  no credible evidence that Oswald was the one who shot Kennedy.

You can make up whatever you want to. And I will be just as interested as I am your invisible dragon.

[John Iacoletti]

The partial palm print (CE 639) was released to the FBI at midnight 11/22/63.....  It was examined in the FBI lab in Washington DC on Saturday 11/23/63, and it was reported as being useless for ID purposes.   

Bull.

Latona didn?t get the magic partial palmprint until November 29th.