Rolling Readers & Murdered Leaders

[Martin Weidmann]

Great.  Then you have proved my point.  And to take this to the logical extreme, if the bag had contained "forensic evidence of ever holding the TSBD Carcano" (whatever that might be) you would claim that was planted as well.  And on and on and on down the yellow brick road.  Any evidence of Oswald's guilt is dismissed as fake.  So there is no evidence of Oswald's guilt.  Catch 22 of CTer logic.

if the bag had contained "forensic evidence of ever holding the TSBD Carcano" (whatever that might be) you would claim that was planted as well.

Utterly irrelevant speculation since the bag did not contain any kind of forensic evidence to link it to any Carcano.

And on and on and on down the yellow brick road.  Any evidence of Oswald's guilt is dismissed as fake.

There's the pot calling the kettle black! There is no evidence whatsoever that a Carcano was ever concealed or carried in that bag. There isn't even evidence that it is the bag Oswald carried, but despite those facts you will continue to claim that the bag somehow is evidence of Oswald's guilt. Even worse, even the slightest suggestion that evidence was possibly tampered with is considered proof by you that Oswald was guilty.

You considering Oswald to be guilty isn't based on the actual evidence. It's based on pure blind faith regardless of what the evidence really shows. It's truly pathetic.

[Thomas Graves]

if the bag had contained "forensic evidence of ever holding the TSBD Carcano" (whatever that might be) you would claim that was planted as well.

Utterly irrelevant speculation since the bag did not contain any kind of forensic evidence to link it to any Carcano.

And on and on and on down the yellow brick road.  Any evidence of Oswald's guilt is dismissed as fake.

There's the pot calling the kettle black! There is no evidence whatsoever that a Carcano was ever concealed or carried in that bag. There isn't even evidence that it is the bag Oswald carried, but despite those facts you will continue to claim that the bag somehow is evidence of Oswald's guilt. Even worse, even the slightest suggestion that evidence was possibly tampered with is considered proof by you that Oswald was guilty.

You considering Oswald to be guilty isn't based on the actual evidence. It's based on pure blind faith regardless of what the evidence really shows. It's truly pathetic.

Weidmann,

If the Carcano had been carried in that bag, what kind of evidence indicating same would you reasonably expect to find?

-- MWT 

[Martin Weidmann]

Weidmann,

If the Carcano had been carried in that bag, what kind of evidence indicating same would you reasonably expect to find?

-- MWT 

Graves,

It's a mute point. No evidence of a rifle having been carried in that bag was found. A far better question IMO would be why anybody would argue that a rifle had been carried in that bag when there is no evidence for it and it can not even be proven that the bag is the same one Oswald carried that morning.

Stop living in a dreamworld and try to deal with the known facts rather than what you want the outcome to be.

[Thomas Graves]

Graves,

It's a mute point. No evidence of a rifle having been carried in that bag was found. A far better question IMO would be why anybody would argue that a rifle had been carried in that bag when there is no evidence for it and it can not even be proven that the bag is the same one Oswald carried that morning.

Stop living in a dreamworld and try to deal with the known facts rather than what you want the outcome to be.

Weidmann,

I somehow knew you wouldn't want to answer that question.

For the simple reason that you can't.

-- MWT 

[Martin Weidmann]

Weidmann,

I somehow knew you wouldn't want to answer that question.

For the simple reason that you can't.

-- MWT 

Just as I knew you wouldn't accept any answer I gave you anyway.

[Colin Crow]

Weidmann,

If the Carcano had been carried in that bag, what kind of evidence indicating same would you reasonably expect to find?

-- MWT 

Were both ends of CE142 folded over and sealed to contain the disassembled carcano? If so does anyone have any pictures of the bag that demonstrate that was the case?

[Richard Smith]

You're wrong as usual as NO evidence points to LHO as you falsely claim. That's why this is still be discussed 55 years later. We have no way of knowing if his prints were on anything since the person working with the prints said that he had never seen LHO's hands to know what his prints looked like.

By the way, what paper bag?

Even the most outlandish fringe kook shouldn't use terms like "NO evidence."  It's not only embarrassing but dishonest.  Oswald's rifle, bullet casings, prints, lies, absence of an alibi, flight, and resisting arrest are classic examples of evidence in a crime.  In fact, it's difficult to imagine what more evidence there could be. Perhaps you can enlighten us, though, as to what evidence is missing from the record relating to Oswald's guilt.  While you are at it, maybe cite us to the "evidence" that links someone else to this crime.  Use the same impossible, subjective interpretation of that term that you apply in the case of Oswald.   Good luck. 

btw:  how is the search going for that dead SS agent?  You must be spending countless hours going through the short list of agents to find the one who disappeared from history after 11.22.  I know you want to solve the case and wouldn't just post a claim that you believe is baseless but go the extra mile to find the truth.  Inspiring.

[Bill Chapman]

Already did countless times, but you LNers whined and had it removed. By the way, when do you cite for any of your claims?

What 'claims' might those be? You wouldn't happen to be mistaking those of my posts that are written in mocking fashion for a claim, now would you?

Re the prints on the gun bag, are you talking about JC Day and/or RL Studebaker by any chance?

And your series was removed because you were hogging the front pages. Duncan clearly explained that to you.