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

[John Iacoletti]

No "law enforcement" official involved with investigating this crime (or any crime) would ever be so bold (read foolish) as to claim that anything can be proven "beyond any doubt".  That's pure "Richard".

What "Richard" charmingly refers to as "contrarian responses" is in fact plenty of reasonable doubt -- not just about his final conclusion, but with the authenticity of what little physical evidence actually exists.  Of course he desires it to be "good enough", but that's so he can maintain this "beyond any doubt" delusion.

[Richard Smith]

Translation: I don't have an opinion of my own and just blindly believe whatever I am told, which in turn I of course can not explain or defend.

They conducted and compiled the evidence that links Oswald to the crime beyond any doubt.

2 comments;

1. No they didn't. The evidence was weak, dubious and highly circumstantial with only a tentative link to Oswald

2. Hang on....You have just expressed the opinion that the evidence compiled by law enforcement is linked to Oswald beyond any doubt. So, you do have an opinion after all. But you can not explain why that is your opinion and how you arrived at that conclusion? Is that right? Wow....

The evidence compiled by the investigation is the evidence that I rely upon to conclude that Oswald was the assassin on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

Again, relying on evidence to conclude that Oswald was on the 6th floor is an opinion. It's your opinion, so why can't you explain on exactly what evidence that opinion is based?

What actual evidence do you have that shows that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired?

It's impossible to decipher this rambling nonsense.  I have concluded that Oswald was the assassin.  That conclusion is based on the evidence outlined by the law enforcement entities responsible for investigating the case.  Relying upon the evidence to reach a conclusion is  merely an "opinion"?  LOL.   No act in human history could ever be deemed a fact if relying upon the evidence to reach a conclusion was dismissed as an opinion because some contrarian disagreed with that conclusion.   Prove to me that Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg address if I can dismiss all the evidence as merely your "opinion" based upon what you have been "told."  It is laughable.  You should be ashamed.

[Martin Weidmann]

It's impossible to decipher this rambling nonsense.  I have concluded that Oswald was the assassin.  That conclusion is based on the evidence outlined by the law enforcement entities responsible for investigating the case.  Relying upon the evidence to reach a conclusion is  merely an "opinion"?  LOL.   No act in human history could ever be deemed a fact if relying upon the evidence to reach a conclusion was dismissed as an opinion because some contrarian disagreed with that conclusion.   Prove to me that Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg address if I can dismiss all the evidence as merely your "opinion" based upon what you have been "told."  It is laughable.  You should be ashamed.

It's impossible to decipher this rambling nonsense.

Hilarious. You can't decipher something, yet call it rambling nonsense nevertheless. Don't you understand how stupid that sounds?
We already know that you have major problems in understanding what you are told. That's nothing new.

I have concluded that Oswald was the assassin.  That conclusion is based on the evidence outlined by the law enforcement entities responsible for investigating the case.  Relying upon the evidence to reach a conclusion is  merely an "opinion"?  LOL.

Yes, your conclusion is "merely an opinion". I have looked at the same evidence and concluded that it is weak, speculative, non-conclusive and highly questionable. That's an opinion also.

I have explained many times why it is my opinion that the evidence against Oswald isn't persuasive, most likely manipulated, and certainly doesn't prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. You, on the other hand, have never explained why you feel the evidence against Oswald is conclusive.

No act in human history could ever be deemed a fact if relying upon the evidence to reach a conclusion was dismissed as an opinion because some contrarian disagreed with that conclusion.

Something isn't a fact just because you say it is. Only a fool would consider his own opinion to be a "fact". Different people can have different opinions about the evidence. It happens every day in just about every courtroom in the country. When there are different opinions about the evidentiary value of a piece of evidence, further examination is needed to determine what is factual and what isn't.

The WC report is nothing more than a prosecutor's brief. To predetermine it as factual is just plain cult-like stupidity.

The biggest irony is that an actual fact can indeed be proven. You, on the other hand, can't even begin to explain your own conclusion and can not provide a shred of evidence in support of your own claims!

But let's stay on topic. The WC and law enforcement have not presented a shred of evidence for their assumption that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. Their "conclusion" most certainly isn't a fact. Assuming that he was there because "his rifle" was found there is utter BS. There is no evidence for you to rely on to reach your conclusion and call it a "fact". Yet, here you are claiming that Oswald was in fact on the 6th floor. It's pathetic.

[Richard Smith]

It's impossible to decipher this rambling nonsense.

Hilarious. You can't decipher something, yet call it rambling nonsense nevertheless. Don't you understand how stupid that sounds?
We already know that you have major problems in understanding what you are told. That's nothing new.

I have concluded that Oswald was the assassin.  That conclusion is based on the evidence outlined by the law enforcement entities responsible for investigating the case.  Relying upon the evidence to reach a conclusion is  merely an "opinion"?  LOL.

Yes, your conclusion is "merely an opinion". I have looked at the same evidence and concluded that it is weak, speculative, non-conclusive and highly questionable. That's an opinion also.

I have explained many times why it is my opinion that the evidence against Oswald isn't persuasive, most likely manipulated, and certainly doesn't prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. You, on the other hand, have never explained why you feel the evidence against Oswald is conclusive.

No act in human history could ever be deemed a fact if relying upon the evidence to reach a conclusion was dismissed as an opinion because some contrarian disagreed with that conclusion.

Something isn't a fact just because you say it is. Only a fool would consider his own opinion to be a "fact". Different people can have different opinions about the evidence. It happens every day in just about every courtroom in the country. When there are different opinions about the evidentiary value of a piece of evidence, further examination is needed to determine what is factual and what isn't.

The WC report is nothing more than a prosecutor's brief. To predetermine it as factual is just plain cult-like stupidity.

The biggest irony is that an actual fact can indeed be proven. You, on the other hand, can't even begin to explain your own conclusion and can not provide a shred of evidence in support of your own claims!

But let's stay on topic. The WC and law enforcement have not presented a shred of evidence for their assumption that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. Their "conclusion" most certainly isn't a fact. Assuming that he was there because "his rifle" was found there is utter BS. There is no evidence for you to rely on to reach your conclusion and call it a "fact". Yet, here you are claiming that Oswald was in fact on the 6th floor. It's pathetic.

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"? 

[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.