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

[Bill Chapman]

There's a compelling case.  Just make a bunch of false claims, insist you're right and claim victory.

In the "Richard Smith" lexicon, "contrarian" is defined as someone who points out that his false claims are false.

Since when does a (self-appointed) 'Devil's Advocate' qualify as an arbiter of what is true and what is false?

[Bill Chapman]

The guy who thinks it's a problem to analyze the veracity of each item of purported evidence.

Point out where I claim that

[Bill Chapman]

Actually, you're the one claiming OswaldProbablyDidIt, but are unable to articulate any reason for believing that.

It's got nothing to do with belief

[Martin Weidmann]

Since when does a (self-appointed) 'Devil's Advocate' qualify as an arbiter of what is true and what is false?

The answer would be anybody who looks honestly at the evidence and finds that it does not support the bogus claims made by guys like Richard Smith.

I asked Richard Smith several times in the recent past what qualifications he had to make certain determinations. Never got a reply of course, but then I never really expected one.

But I did not see you asking Richard a similar question. You probably just missed those conversations, right?

[Martin Weidmann]

Point out where I claim that

You don't have to claim it. It's obvious to anybody who reads your posts

[Martin Weidmann]

It's got nothing to do with belief

Really? You don't say...

[Bill Chapman]

You don't have to claim it. It's obvious to anybody who reads your posts

Legalese Quote:
"It is a well established principle of law that when weighing the evidence the fact finder must not subject each piece of evidence to the standard of proof (proof beyond a reasonable doubt). The trier of fact must apply that standard of proof to the whole of the evidence."

I have no problem with somebody looking at the evidence as long as it is not in isolation from said 'whole of the evidence'.

Terminator 2 Liquid T-1000 Scene
Iacoletti would scald himself trying to keep the molten metal pieces apart:

[Bill Chapman]

The answer would be anybody who looks honestly at the evidence and finds that it does not support the bogus claims made by guys like Richard Smith.

I asked Richard Smith several times in the recent past what qualifications he had to make certain determinations. Never got a reply of course, but then I never really expected one.

But I did not see you asking Richard a similar question. You probably just missed those conversations, right?

What makes you think I agree with others stating, for instance, "the Carcano" rather than "a Carcano"

And are you sure Richard thinks you worthy of a response?