There's nothing wrong with speculating John, that's exactly what discussion/debating forums are all about.
I agree, Denis. The problem is when people take their speculations and state them as facts or call them evidence.
It often seems that somewhere in the mind of John Iacoletti this forum is a courtroom and you're Oswald's defence lawyer.
That's like accusing you of being Oswald's prosecution lawyer. An honest evaluation of the evidence (or lack thereof) does not require a courtroom or a trial. It just requires that people ditch their predetermined agenda and biased rhetoric in favor of the facts. And the ability to admit that "I don't know" is often the best answer.
Well, you've done half of what I requested and specified what part of the WR you believe to be an “ingenious imaginary scenario“ thanks for that. Now when will you fulfil the second half of my request and prove it...unless you're just speculating of course.
Prove that the WC conclusions are an imaginary scenario? Because they are inferences derived from assumptions and (often) misrepresentations, not a fact-based narrative.
Examples:
"4. The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald. This conclusion is based upon the following:
(a) The Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5-millimeter Italian rifle from which the shots were fired was owned by and in the possession of Oswald."
Assumptions, not based on anything factual:
- That the MC rifle fired the bullet that killed Kennedy
- That the rifle was ever in the possession of Oswald prior to the assassination
"(b) Oswald carried this rifle into the Depository Building on the morning of November 22,1963."
Assumption based on nothing factual.
"(c) Oswald, at the time of the assassination, was present at the window from which t.he shots were fired."
Assumption solely based on Howard Brennan's later change of heart after failing to identify Oswald even after seeing his picture in the paper
"(d) Shortly after the assassination, the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle belonging to Oswald was found partially hidden between some cartons on the sixth floor and the improvised paper bag in which Oswald brought the rifle to the Depository was found close by the window from which the shots were fired."
Assumptions based on nothing factual:
- That the rifle was brought in in the CE 142 bag
- That the CE142 bag was brought in by Oswald
"(f) Oswald lied to the police after his arrest concerning important substantive matters."
Assumption based on a circular argument that Oswald committed the crime so he must have been lying
"(g) Oswald had attempted to kill Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker (Resigned, U.S. Army) on April 10,1963, thereby demonstrating his disposition to take human life."
Assumption based solely on hearsay from Marina.
You have it backwards. It's an imaginary scenario until it can actually be proven that it happened that way.
