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

[Richard Smith]

This was my question;

When will you be discussing the case against Oswald instead of constantly talking about all sorts of other stuff? You do know this is not the "attack Martin Weidmann forum" nor is it the "whining about disbelievers forum"?

It seems this pathetic rant of yours provides the answer.

One more comment; you also seem unable to stop lying.

You said; You think this case is "solvable" under your impossible standard of proof?

What I actually said is; "In my opinion, if there was indeed a conspiracy, it's highly unlikely we will ever find out who were behind it."

So, there are two possibilities; you either can't comprehend what you are reading or you are simply lying.

So this case is not solvable according to you exactly as I indicated.  If so, why bother with these endless rants and insults? 

[Martin Weidmann]

So this case is not solvable according to you exactly as I indicated.  If so, why bother with these endless rants and insults?

Exactly as expected, more contradictory gibberish from a guy with a reading comprehension problem.

As you are clearly here not to discuss the JFK case, what's next?

[John Iacoletti]

What explanation there is for all the evidence and circumstances that lend themselves to Oswald's guilt if he was not the assassin are left to our imagination. 

…which you have consistently failed to enumerate in any way. BTW, “government said so” is not evidence.

[Richard Smith]

Exactly as expected, more contradictory gibberish from a guy with a reading comprehension problem.

As you are clearly here not to discuss the JFK case, what's next?

It's great when you can't keep your story straight.  You took issue with my characterizing of your looney contrarian position on the case as being unsolvable by posting:  "What I actually said is; "In my opinion, if there was indeed a conspiracy, it's highly unlikely we will ever find out who were behind it." HA HA HA.   So it's "unsolvable" according to you if there was a conspiracy.  Of course, you also find the evidence against Oswald lacking.  Taking us back to the case being unsolvable.  You can't articulate any way to move forward but instead circle back to endless commentary and insults.  A vicious rabbit hole circle of lunacy.

[Martin Weidmann]

It's great when you can't keep your story straight.  You took issue with my characterizing of your looney contrarian position on the case as being unsolvable by posting:  "What I actually said is; "In my opinion, if there was indeed a conspiracy, it's highly unlikely we will ever find out who were behind it." HA HA HA.   So it's "unsolvable" according to you if there was a conspiracy.  Of course, you also find the evidence against Oswald lacking.  Taking us back to the case being unsolvable.  You can't articulate any way to move forward but instead circle back to endless commentary and insults.  A vicious rabbit hole circle of lunacy.

Of course, you also find the evidence against Oswald lacking.

What evidence would that be? You haven't produced any and as John already said “government said so” is not evidence.

Taking us back to the case being unsolvable.

Really? How do you figure? When you produce the evidence of Oswald's guilt, which you claim exists, that would solve the case, wouldn't it? Or could it be that such evidence simply doesn't exist, after all?

In any event, let's get back to discussing the case, shall we?

As the WC report doesn't contain the information, when will you be producing the evidence for your claims that Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired and that he came down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot?

Do you think you will be able to produce this evidence before the end of the year or shall we just conclude that you make foolish claims you can't support with evidence?

[John Iacoletti]

It's great when you can't keep your story straight.  You took issue with my characterizing of your looney contrarian position on the case as being unsolvable by posting:  "What I actually said is; "In my opinion, if there was indeed a conspiracy, it's highly unlikely we will ever find out who were behind it." HA HA HA.   So it's "unsolvable" according to you if there was a conspiracy.  Of course, you also find the evidence against Oswald lacking.  Taking us back to the case being unsolvable.  You can't articulate any way to move forward but instead circle back to endless commentary and insults.  A vicious rabbit hole circle of lunacy.

Speaking of endless commentary and insults, you have yet to produce a single evidence-based argument about the actual case. Calling somebody’s position “looney” is not an argument.

[Richard Smith]

Of course, you also find the evidence against Oswald lacking.

What evidence would that be? You haven't produced any and as John already said “government said so” is not evidence.

Taking us back to the case being unsolvable.

Really? How do you figure? When you produce the evidence of Oswald's guilt, which you claim exists, that would solve the case, wouldn't it? Or could it be that such evidence simply doesn't exist, after all?

In any event, let's get back to discussing the case, shall we?

As the WC report doesn't contain the information, when will you be producing the evidence for your claims that Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired and that he came down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot?

Do you think you will be able to produce this evidence before the end of the year or shall we just conclude that you make foolish claims you can't support with evidence?

Try to follow along.  You do not accept the evidence of Oswald's guilt.  You also suggest that you do not believe it is possible to solve a conspiracy to figure out who was behind it if one existed.  The only implication to be drawn from these claims is that you believe the case is effectively unsolvable.  You have reached the end of the line absent a time machine.  But then you take issue with that and bizarrely suggest that I must "produce" evidence that convinces you.  Mistakenly conflating your fake contrarian doubt with having relevance as to the issue of Oswald's guilt.  No one has to convince you or "produce" any additional evidence to accept Oswald's guilt as a proven fact.  It has been done.  Whether you agree with that is not relevant.  There are many kooks in the world who take issue with established facts.  That is not grounds for doubt.

[Martin Weidmann]

Try to follow along.  You do not accept the evidence of Oswald's guilt.  You also suggest that you do not believe it is possible to solve a conspiracy to figure out who was behind it if one existed.  The only implication to be drawn from these claims is that you believe the case is effectively unsolvable.  You have reached the end of the line absent a time machine.  But then you take issue with that and bizarrely suggest that I must "produce" evidence that convinces you.  Mistakenly conflating your fake contrarian doubt with having relevance to as to the issue of Oswald's guilt.  No one has to convince you or "produce" any additional evidence to accept Oswald's guilt as a proven fact.  It has been done.  Whether you agree with that is not relevant.  There are many kooks in the world who take issue with established facts.  That is not grounds for doubt.

You do not accept the evidence of Oswald's guilt.

What evidence would that be? You haven't presented any!

The only implication to be drawn from these claims is that you believe the case is effectively unsolvable.

Wouldn't the case be solved if you produced the conclusive evidence of Oswald's guilt you claim exists?

But then you take issue with that and bizarrely suggest that I must "produce" evidence that convinces you.

Typical LN stupidity. You claim Oswald is guilty and that he was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. If you want me to accept and believe that, you do indeed need to produce the evidence that supports that claim. There is nothing bizarre about it. What is absolutely bizarre is somebody like you making claims he can/will not support with evidence.

Mistakenly conflating your fake contrarian doubt with having relevance to as to the issue of Oswald's guilt.

My doubt is just as relevant and your believe that Oswald is guilty.

No one has to convince you or "produce" any additional evidence to accept Oswald's guilt as a proven fact.  It has been done.

Nobody is asking for "additional evidence". Just evidence to support your pathetic claims will do. Obviously you can't present any such evidence because you don't have any.

There are many kooks in the world who take issue with established facts.  That is not grounds for doubt.

There are plenty of fantical zealots in the world who claim to know the truth and have the "facts". Whatever clowns like that say is automatically grounds for doubt.

Bottom line; you claim Oswald is guilty, but you can't defend or explain the WC conclusions nor can you present any evidence of that alleged guilt. In short, you've got nothing and are just blowing hot air.