CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?

[Martin Weidmann]

The WC compiled evidence from a variety of different sources.  Your subjective opinion that it is a "prosecutor's brief" does not rebut any of that evidence or render it an "opinion" rather than a fact.  You are constantly mistaking your subjective contrarian view as rebuttal to actual evidence.  Can you understand the difference?  That is a rhetorical question since you cannot.  It is actually laughable that you take yourself so seriously while providing these rambling long-winded explanations of your bizarre contrarian nonsense.  Again, is it merely my "opinion" that Abraham Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address because that is what I have been "told."  How would you prove this as a fact using your contrarian impossible standard of proof if someone else can dismiss all your evidence as an "assumption"?

Wow. I knew you were living in another reality, but I didn't understand that it was so bad.

Staggering ignorance on display. Calling the WC report a "fact" is something only a totally unreasonable fanatical zealot would do. I don't care how many places the WC got their evidence from. They still cherry picked the parts they wanted to reach predetermined conclusions that are not even supported by the evidence. And of course it is a "prosecutor's brief". There is not a single word in favor of Oswald in the entire report. You really can't be so dumb that you do not understand this, but it seems you are.

How would you prove this as a fact using your contrarian impossible standard of proof if someone else can dismiss all your evidence as an "assumption"?

Pathetic argument of a drama queen. Nobody is dismissing all the evidence. How can I dismiss evidence that you have failed completely to provide. Also, some of the evidence is actually pointing to conclusions such as Oswald not coming down the stairs and not being on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. I have asked you for the evidence for both of those claims and you haven't provided any of it. How can I dismiss evidence that clearly doesn't exist?

Btw scrutinizing evidence is not the same as dismissing it. But I fear you will never understand that.

[Richard Smith]

Wow. I knew you were living in another reality, but I didn't understand that it was so bad.

Staggering ignorance on display. You are so far gone that there is no way to have any kind of reasonable conversation with you, so I won't.

Translation:  Martin realizes his contrarian nonsense has been exposed and he is running away.  Nothing I posted was controversial.  The WC did obtain evidence from a variety of different sources including state and federal law enforcement entities, private citizens, and businesses.  The most investigated criminal case in history.  The fact that the WC, as did every investigation conducted, concluded that Oswald was the assassin doesn't mean it is biased as Martin stupidly suggests.  Rather, the WC simply reached the conclusion overwhelmingly supported by the evidence.  Applying Martin's bizarre contrarian impossible standard of proof to any event in human history would preclude ever reaching any conclusion.  For example, it is merely my "opinion" that someone named George Washington was the first president because I rely upon the historical evidence of such compiled by others to reach this conclusion.  I have no time machine to confirm all this evidence for myself.  There are no such things as facts because individuals can only express their "opinion" no matter how well documented by the underlying evidence.  That is tin foil hat nonsense.  Only worthy of note for amusement because Martin takes his own nonsense so seriously. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Translation:  Martin realizes his contrarian nonsense has been exposed and he is running away.  Nothing I posted was controversial.  The WC did obtain evidence from a variety of different sources including state and federal law enforcement entities, private citizens, and businesses.  The most investigated criminal case in history.  The fact that the WC, as did every investigation conducted, concluded that Oswald was the assassin doesn't mean it is biased as Martin stupidly suggests.  Rather, the WC simply reached the conclusion overwhelmingly supported by the evidence.  Applying Martin's bizarre contrarian impossible standard of proof to any event in human history would preclude ever reaching any conclusion.  For example, it is merely my "opinion" that someone named George Washington was the first president because I rely upon the historical evidence of such compiled by others to reach this conclusion.  I have no time machine to confirm all this evidence for myself.  There are no such things as facts because individuals can only express their "opinion" no matter how well documented by the underlying evidence.  That is tin foil hat nonsense.  Only worthy of note for amusement because Martin takes his own nonsense so seriously.

Translation:  Martin realizes his contrarian nonsense has been exposed and he is running away.  Nothing I posted was controversial. 

Hilarious. So, you can't translate either.... Well, no surprise really....

The WC did obtain evidence from a variety of different sources including state and federal law enforcement entities, private citizens, and businesses.  The most investigated criminal case in history.

Look up appeal to authority fallacy.

Rather, the WC simply reached the conclusion overwhelmingly supported by the evidence.

So, now you agree the WC reached conclusions?

And, what makes you say that those conclusions were supported by evidence, when, in most cases, that clearly and demonstrably wasn't the case? Let me guess; it is your opinion and thus - in your mind - a fact.... HAHAHAHAHAHA

The bottom line is that you keep coming back to the same old "it's true because the WC said so" idiocy. Your indoctrination has clearly been completed.

[John Iacoletti]

The WC compiled evidence from a variety of different sources.  Your subjective opinion that it is a "prosecutor's brief" does not rebut any of that evidence or render it an "opinion" rather than a fact. 

The evidence (such as it is) is not an opinion, but the conclusions you have based on it most certainly is.  Do you really not understand the difference?  And what is this fetish you have about trying to relate everything to Lincoln?  "Oswald killed Kennedy" is nothing like "Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg address".  The mere fact that you are attempting such a ridiculous false equivalency shows that you not only don't understand the Kennedy assassination, you don't understand basic logic or even the English language.

[Richard Smith]

Translation:  Martin realizes his contrarian nonsense has been exposed and he is running away.  Nothing I posted was controversial. 

Hilarious. So, you can't translate either.... Well, no surprise really....

The WC did obtain evidence from a variety of different sources including state and federal law enforcement entities, private citizens, and businesses.  The most investigated criminal case in history.

Look up appeal to authority fallacy.

Rather, the WC simply reached the conclusion overwhelmingly supported by the evidence.

So, now you agree the WC reached conclusions?

And, what makes you say that those conclusions were supported by evidence, when, in most cases, that clearly and demonstrably wasn't the case? Let me guess; it is your opinion and thus - in your mind - a fact.... HAHAHAHAHAHA

The bottom line is that you keep coming back to the same old "it's true because the WC said so" idiocy. Your indoctrination has clearly been completed.

Prove to me that Abraham Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address in a way that satisfies the same contrarian standard of proof that you apply to Oswald's guilt.  Or is it merely my "opinion" that Lincoln delivered that speech and doubt exists about this conclusion based upon an "appeal to authority fallacy" because I was not actually there and instead rely upon the evidence complied by others to reach this conclusion?  Demonstrate how a fact from human history can be proved to a contrarian's satisfaction or admit that, like Inspector Clouseau, you don't believe there are such things as facts.   At least not when it comes to Oswald's guilt.  Only "assumptions" and "opinions" because events that we did not witness come to us through investigations like the WC Report.  The only difference here is the extensive nature of the WC Report.  Perhaps no other event in human history, much less a criminal act, has been investigated to the extent of the JFK assassination.     

[Bill Chapman]

Weidmann is still not clever.

[John Iacoletti]

Perhaps no other event in human history, much less a criminal act, has been investigated to the extent of the JFK assassination.     

And they still can't demonstrate that their foregone conclusion is actually true.

[Bill Chapman]

Oswald still got what he deserved