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

[Bill Chapman]

Oswald was unstoppable that day.

[Martin Weidmann]

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.     

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.

Hilarious. Is it really your childisch naive "logic" to believe that just because a report is extensive, it's conclusions have to be true and correct?

And talking about the WC report being "extensive"; where in the report can I find the evidence that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he ran down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot? Let me guess; I just have to assume he was and did so, just because a rifle that allegedly belonged to him was found on the 6th floor, right?.... Seriously?

Come to think of it; where is the "extensive" investigation of the total lack of a chain of custody for pieces of evidence like CE399, the grey/white jacket and Oswald's alleged revolver? Also, where is the investigation into the missing approx two minutes in the DPD radio recordings at around the time Tippit was shot?

How in the world can you call an investigation "extensive" when crucial witnesses such as Buell Frazier, Victoria Adams, Dorothy Garner and so on are either ignored or "discredited" simply because their story doesn't fit the official narrative?

[Richard Smith]

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.

Hilarious. Is it really your childisch naive "logic" to believe that just because a report is extensive, it's conclusions have to be true and correct?

And talking about the WC report being "extensive"; where in the report can I find the evidence that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he ran down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot? Let me guess; I just have to assume he was and did so, just because a rifle that allegedly belonged to him was found on the 6th floor, right?.... Seriously?

Come to think of it; where is the "extensive" investigation of the total lack of a chain of custody for pieces of evidence like CE399, the grey/white jacket and Oswald's alleged revolver? Also, where is the investigation into the missing approx two minutes in the DPD radio recordings at around the time Tippit was shot?

How in the world can you call an investigation "extensive" when crucial witnesses such as Buell Frazier, Victoria Adams, Dorothy Garner and so on are either ignored or "discredited" simply because their story doesn't fit the official narrative?

Of all your weak contrarian CTer arguments, the claim that the JFK assassination has not been extensively investigated is among the most delusional.  This event was not only investigated by the state and federal governments but generations of kooks such as yourself.  The federal government had no legal obligation to conduct any investigation but did so twice. Millions of pages of investigation, thousands of books, documentaries, and films on the subject.  And here we are six decades later with no doubt of Oswald's guilt or the involvement of anyone else.  But you are crying a river about a lack of investigation.  LOL.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Of all your weak contrarian CTer arguments, the claim that the JFK assassination has not been extensively investigated is among the most delusional.  This event was not only investigated by the state and federal governments but generations of kooks such as yourself.  The federal government had no legal obligation to conduct any investigation but did so twice. Millions of pages of investigation, thousands of books, documentaries, and films on the subject.  And here we are six decades later with no doubt of Oswald's guilt or the involvement of anyone else.  But you are crying a river about a lack of investigation.  LOL.

It's always 1964 for the conspiracists. Thus the mantra of "the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission..." All of the subsequent investigations - by the government or by the media and others - are dismissed or ignored.

Meanwhile, they ask for evidence, in fact they say they are here to discuss the evidence; but when the evidence of Oswald's guilt is provided they dismiss it as "corrupt". Why it is corrupt? Because they say the "chain of evidence" is insufficient or the DPD was "dirty" and they "possibly" could have manufactured/falsified it. This possibility *alone* is sufficient to dismiss it.

So, if the "chain of custody" is sufficient they wave away that evidence as "possibly" faked. But if the evidence is real, they then say the "chain of custody" for it was broken and its not reliable. In either case they dismiss it. Every time. Except, of course, for the conspiracy claims. Someone can say Ruth Paine was the mastermind behind the framing of Oswald and they are silent. Nowhere to be found.

So where can you go with this? It's an endless repetition of denial on their part.

[Paul J Cummings]

Yeah maybe some of them should actually read the conclusion of the HSCA. You know the RECENT and actual INVESTIGATIVE report.

[Martin Weidmann]

Of all your weak contrarian CTer arguments, the claim that the JFK assassination has not been extensively investigated is among the most delusional.  This event was not only investigated by the state and federal governments but generations of kooks such as yourself.  The federal government had no legal obligation to conduct any investigation but did so twice. Millions of pages of investigation, thousands of books, documentaries, and films on the subject.  And here we are six decades later with no doubt of Oswald's guilt or the involvement of anyone else.  But you are crying a river about a lack of investigation.  LOL.

Of all your weak contrarian CTer arguments, the claim that the JFK assassination has not been extensively investigated is among the most delusional.

And where exactly did I say that the investigation hasn't been extensive? I won't wait for the answer, because I never said that and you, as usual, made it up.

And here we are six decades later with no doubt of Oswald's guilt or the involvement of anyone else.

Are you for real? There has been doubt about Oswald's guilt from day one and you and your ilk have never been able to change that. Like it or not, the majority of the people has and probably will always have reasonable doubts about what happened on 11/22/63.

But you are crying a river about a lack of investigation.  LOL.

Pathetic. It's pretty obvious that you can't show me where I can find the information I asked for in the WC report. The reason is of course that it isn't there. I suppose they were too busy to investigate Oswald's pubic hair. LOL

[Martin Weidmann]

It's always 1964 for the conspiracists. Thus the mantra of "the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission..." All of the subsequent investigations - by the government or by the media and others - are dismissed or ignored.

Meanwhile, they ask for evidence, in fact they say they are here to discuss the evidence; but when the evidence of Oswald's guilt is provided they dismiss it as "corrupt". Why it is corrupt? Because they say the "chain of evidence" is insufficient or the DPD was "dirty" and they "possibly" could have manufactured/falsified it. This possibility *alone* is sufficient to dismiss it.

So, if the "chain of custody" is sufficient they wave away that evidence as "possibly" faked. But if the evidence is real, they then say the "chain of custody" for it was broken and its not reliable. In either case they dismiss it. Every time. Except, of course, for the conspiracy claims. Someone can say Ruth Paine was the mastermind behind the framing of Oswald and they are silent. Nowhere to be found.

So where can you go with this? It's an endless repetition of denial on their part.

Before you write something stupid like this, perhaps you should educate yourself.

To prove someone guilty, a prosecutor must prove that the evidence presented in court is the same evidence that was recovered at the scene of an alleged crime. They must be able to show that the evidence was handled properly and was not contaminated or tampered with. If law enforcement does not properly handle evidence, the evidence can be challenged on the grounds that it was tampered with, that test results are faulty or inaccurate, or that evidence was planted at the scene of a crime. 

https://www.justcriminallaw.com/criminal-charges-questions/2020/08/26/chain-custody-important-criminal-case/

You and your ilk claim that Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit, but instantly complain when somebody asks you for the evidence to support that claim your "how dare they ask" reply is always the same. You can whine all you want about evidence being dismissed or questioned but the bottom line is that every time a problem with a piece of evidence is pointed out the LNs refuse to discuss it and dismiss it out of hand.

Reasonable people present the evidence and explain why it is persuasive and conclusive. LNs don't present evidence, don't discuss evidence, make false claims about the existence of evidence that simply doesn't exist and run away from a topic as soon as they notice that their BS isn't convincing anybody.

[John Iacoletti]

What’s hilarious is “Richard’s” notion that pages and pages of written conjecture constitute “investigations” and somehow remove any doubt.