A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.

[John Mytton]

No surprise that the guy who always makes false claims about the evidence approves of another guy who makes false claims about the evidence.

No surprise coming from the guy who continually writes checks that he can't afford, the above self serving guess of the Kleins / Crescent business relationship being a prime example.

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

No surprise coming from the guy who continually writes checks that he can't afford, the above self serving guess of the Kleins / Crescent business relationship being a prime example.

How about the self-serving "it took them 8 months to get around to shipping an order"?  That is the extraordinary claim here.

[John Mytton]

How about the self-serving "it took them 8 months to get around to shipping an order"?  That is the extraordinary claim here.

Again you're questioning how these businesses conducted their transactions and based on what, your intuition?

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

Says the guy who bases his conclusion that Oswald shot Kennedy on his intuition.

[Andrew Mason]

No you didn't "cover" them at all.  You just claimed that there was evidence that the MC was the murder weapon, that it
was fired on 22-11-63, and that it was fired from the SN without actually specifying what that evidence is.

The MC was found in the SN; a object looking like a gun barrel was seen protruding from the SN window during and seconds after the assassination; a bullet fired from that gun was found at Parkland where the wounded President and Governor were treated. That is more than enough evidence to conclude that C2766 was the murder weapon. That is evidence. You don't agree that the evidence supports the conclusion that it was the murder weapon. I am not sure whether you think it was just a lucky coincidence that somehow CE399 matches the striations on bullets fired by C2766 or that it was planted. You don't seem to want to explain how those facts can exist and C2766 not be the weapon that fired CE399 or how CE399 forms part of the evidence in this case if it was not connected with the assassination.

This discussion has become a silly argument of me providing and explaining the evidence and you say, "no you didn't".

Unless you can explain how it is that this evidence exists and not be connected to Oswald without there being an elaborate conspiracy involving the FBI, Dallas Police and dozens if not hundreds of witnesses, I don't think there is much point in continuing this debate. 

[John Iacoletti]

The MC was found in the SN; a object looking like a gun barrel was seen protruding from the SN window during and seconds after the assassination; a bullet fired from that gun was found at Parkland where the wounded President and Governor were treated. That is more than enough evidence to conclude that C2766 was the murder weapon. That is evidence. You don't agree that the evidence supports the conclusion that it was the murder weapon.

Right.  Your conclusion is based on assumptions and unwarranted leaps.  In my opinion.  But you're entitled to make whatever conclusions you like -- I can't make you be logical.  Just don't go stating as a fact that C2766 was the murder weapon.

This discussion has become a silly argument of me providing and explaining the evidence and you say, "no you didn't".

You're sidestepping the many unsupported and false claims that you made that are not a matter of opinion though.

You said Oswald was the only employee to leave the TSBD before an attendance check was made.  I quoted Truly's testimony that says this is false.

You said Oswald got his handgun at the rooming house and tried to claim that Earlene Roberts witnessed it.  She didn't.

You said that Oswald pulled a gun on the arresting officer when the arresting officer merely said that he "went for a gun" before he grabbed his hand.

You repeated Bugliosi's claim that Oswald told one provable lie after another.  Neither you or Bugliosi proved that any of these were lies.  You just used a circular argument to say that he was lying.

You claimed that there were prints (plural) on the rifle under the stock, when in reality there was one partial palmprint that showed up on an index card a week later and no trace of anything on the gun barrel.

You claimed that the envelope sent to Klein's was stamped by Kleins stating that the order was filled.  Klein's never stamped that envelope.

You claimed that Frazier never said that the bag from the SN was not the same bag.  I produced a memo written by FBI agent Anderton quoting Frazier saying exactly that.

You claimed that the rifle package from Klein's was picked up 5 days after it was sent when there is no evidence of it having been picked up at all.  Where did you get 5 days?

You claimed that a bullet ended up in the car, when there is no record anywhere of a bullet being found in the car.

You claimed that there was a Klein's shipping order that was initialed by the person who was responsible for shipping, but failed to show any document or testimony that shows that this is true.

You claimed that Marina said that Oswald bought a gun through the mail but failed to quote any document or testimony of her ever saying that.

Make whatever conclusions you like, but when you make statements of fact that are flat out false you're doing a disservice to everybody, and undermining your own credibility as well.

[Andrew Mason]

Right.  Your conclusion is based on assumptions and unwarranted leaps.  In my opinion.  But you're entitled to make whatever conclusions you like -- I can't make you be logical.  Just don't go stating as a fact that C2766 was the murder weapon.

I will continue to state as a fact that, in the absence of any evidence that there was a broad conspiracy to frame Oswald and plant evidence, the murder weapon was C2766.  You apparently do not understand the difference between reaching a conclusion based on evidence and a priori assumptions based on no evidence at all. You have yet to explain how it is that CE399 was found at Parkland and has nothing to do with the assassination despite it having been conclusively determined that it was fired by the rifle found in the TSBD. I will continue to maintain that it was either fired by C2766 during the assassination or it was planted as part of an elaborate conspiracy to frame Oswald.

You said Oswald got his handgun at the rooming house and tried to claim that Earlene Roberts witnessed it.  She didn't.

I never said that Earlene Roberts witnessed Oswald picking up his gun.  I said she observed that he was in a hurry.  We know from other evidence that he very likely picked up his gun there.

You said that Oswald pulled a gun on the arresting officer when the arresting officer merely said that he "went for a gun" before he grabbed his hand.

So why, exactly, do you think the arresting officer would have put Oswald's hand on the gun and pulled it out of his pants?  That is the only other possibility and it is inconsistent with the arresting officers' evidence.

You repeated Bugliosi's claim that Oswald told one provable lie after another.  Neither you or Bugliosi proved that any of these were lies.  You just used a circular argument to say that he was lying.

He lied about taking a long package to work because we can establish that he did through the evidence of Buell Frazier, Linnie Mae Randle, C2766 itself, the paper wrapper, and the gun missing from the Paines' garage. That may not convince you.  But it is a logical and reasonable conclusion that is based on evidence.

You claimed that there were prints (plural) on the rifle under the stock, when in reality there was one partial palmprint that showed up on an index card a week later and no trace of anything on the gun barrel.

Lt. Day noticed a palmprint near the end of the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock.  He also found prints or partial prints on the magazine housing. He could not make a positive identification of whose prints they were but they were consistent with Oswald's prints.  See Day's WC testimony at 4 H 260.

You claimed that the envelope sent to Klein's was stamped by Kleins stating that the order was filled.  Klein's never stamped that envelope.

So who do you think stamped the envelope and filled it in?:

Make whatever conclusions you like, but when you make statements of fact that are flat out false you're doing a disservice to everybody, and undermining your own credibility as well.

The statements of fact are conclusions based on the evidence.  If you can accept the evidence and reach different rational and reasonable conclusions that are not based on the existence of a broad conspiracy involving law enforcement and the WC, go ahead and try.  You seem reluctant to do that.

[John Iacoletti]

You apparently do not understand the difference between reaching a conclusion based on evidence and a priori assumptions based on no evidence at all.

You apparently don't understand that reaching a conclusion by assuming things that aren't in evidence doesn't make something a fact.

You have yet to explain how it is that CE399 was found at Parkland and has nothing to do with the assassination despite it having been conclusively determined that it was fired by the rifle found in the TSBD.

I'm not convinced that CE 399 was found at Parkland.  O.P. Wright said that the bullet he got from Tomlinson had a pointed tip, and neither Johnsen or Rowley could identify it as being the same bullet as CE 399.

I will continue to maintain that it was either fired by C2766 during the assassination or it was planted as part of an elaborate conspiracy to frame Oswald.

Of course you will.  But why is "an elaborate conspiracy" necessary to insert CE399 into the evidence stream?

We know from other evidence that he very likely picked up his gun there.

Do tell.  What "other evidence"?

So why, exactly, do you think the arresting officer would have put Oswald's hand on the gun and pulled it out of his pants?

That's what the officer himself said.  Why exactly do you think otherwise?

He lied about taking a long package to work because we can establish that he did through the evidence of Buell Frazier, Linnie Mae Randle, C2766 itself, the paper wrapper, and the gun missing from the Paines' garage.

Fritz didn't say that he denied taking any kind of long package to work.  Fritz said that he "denied that he had brought the long package described by Mr. Frazier and his sister."  But nobody knows exactly how Fritz represented the descriptions of Mr. Frazier and his sister.  C2766 being in the building doesn't tell you anything about whether Oswald lied about anything.  You have nothing to connect C2766 with the "paper wrapper" at all.

Lt. Day noticed a palmprint near the end of the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock.  He also found prints or partial prints on the magazine housing. He could not make a positive identification of whose prints they were but they were consistent with Oswald's prints.  See Day's WC testimony at 4 H 260.

Show me where Day says anything about "consistent with Oswald's prints".  He said he couldn't make positive identification of these prints.  You somehow spun that into "his prints were on the rifle under the stock".  The magazine housing isn't even under the stock.

So who do you think stamped the envelope and filled it in?:

Why do you think Klein's stamped this envelope at all?  Point to the part of the envelope you think that Klein's stamped.

The statements of fact are conclusions based on the evidence.

You're entitled to your own opinions.  You are not entitled to your own facts.

  If you can accept the evidence and reach different rational and reasonable conclusions that are not based on the existence of a broad conspiracy involving law enforcement and the WC, go ahead and try.  You seem reluctant to do that.

And for good reason.  I never claimed there was a broad conspiracy involving law enforcement and the WC.  That's your strawman.  That doesn't mean your conclusions just win by default.

Are you going to get around to addressing the even more blatant fallacious claims you made, like the package being picked up 5 days later, or Marina saying he bought a gun through the mail?  Are you at all concerned about propagating misinformation?