CT's, in court how would you defend Oswald?

[John Iacoletti]

Does anyone understand what Chapman is blathering about now?

[Bill Chapman]

Does anyone understand what Chapman is blathering about now?

Stop dodging

[Ray Mitcham]

Does anyone understand what Chapman is blathering about now?

Even Chapman doesn't know what he's on about.

[John Iacoletti]

Stop dodging

Dodging what?  Some unintelligible remark about Freud?  Your hypocrisy in demanding evidence when you never provide any of your own?

[Rick Plant]

You can always tell when a CTer starts running scared.  They trot out things like "burden of proof" and "convincing a jury beyond a reasonable doubt."  When does this fantasy trial begin?  Until then we need only look to the evidence to reach conclusions about what likely happened as normal people do when assessing any other event in human history.  There is no "burden of proof" outside the criminal justice system which is designed to protect the rights even of the guilty.  Fifty plus years after Oswald's death, the only issue is what happened.  Not whether he would be convicted in a trial where there is a presumption of innocence.  That's the stuff of lazy contrarians playing defense attorney in their mother's basement instead of making an honest assessment of the facts and evidence.

When someone makes an outstanding claim, the burden of proof is on them to produce that evidence. Seems like you're trying to mock the idea of holding people accountable for their claims, which is what people usually do when they have no evidence. So, it sounds like you're all for people spouting any sort of nonsense without having to answer for it. That's why we have all these conspiracy theories and frauds like Trump claiming anything they want.     

[Rick Plant]

It's a bizarre form of "logic" that CTers apply to this case.  They suggest here that because no one "saw" Oswald carry a rifle into the TSBD that somehow creates doubt of the fact (i.e. there is "no evidence whatsoever" LOL!).  But the rifle was wrapped in a paper bag.  So unless a witness had x-ray vision no one could actually see the contents of the bag. 

So, basically you criticize CTers but then you add your own theory of a rifle in a paper bag. If you were seen carrying a backpack when a shooting happened, would you want people accusing you of having weapons when you were only carrying books? 

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

When someone makes an outstanding claim, the burden of proof is on them to produce that evidence. Seems like you're trying to mock the idea of holding people accountable for their claims, which is what people usually do when they have no evidence. So, it sounds like you're all for people spouting any sort of nonsense without having to answer for it. That's why we have all these conspiracy theories and frauds like Trump claiming anything they want.     

You are right about everything but Trump. Trump plays games with people who seem so sensitive to his meaningless claims. On the other, we have the actors who play dumb as a fox with their own gossip. Plant seeds every day hoping the public bites, which it will, but how long can a fake story stay alive? Take your pick, he is a racist or he is involved in collusion. Two claims by those who are professionally offended 24/7 and never back it up. It started with fake polling, where the media told you "he will not win" again and again. How did that work out? Well, if you dislike the man, you ignored the games the media played. What is really peculiar is the media becomes "fact-check happy", imagine that! So when we talk about claims you mean like LBJ's Gulf of Tonkin or how about the USS Liberty explanation as being mistaken for an Egyptian vessel that hauls horses Then you have Obama claiming if you like your Health care you can keep the doctor. Or Bill Clinton and AG Loretta Lynche  claiming their tarmac conversation was about the grandchildren

[Bill Chapman]

Does anyone understand what Chapman is blathering about now?

Your attempts to try each piece of evidence singly, in isolation from the whole of the evidence, is well-known. Lets see you get away with that in a court of law.