Spot The Difference

[Richard Smith]

"The issue, however, is not whether the investigation was ideal by modern standards"

To imagine having two different set ups for the crime scene was ideal by the standards of the 1960's is dubious, to say the least.
To imagine this is "nit-picking" is plain wrong.
As for the "pedantic" examination of the lunch remains...if Oswald's prints would've been on the soda pop bottle it would have been one of the most important pieces of physical evidence in the case, placing Oswald in the SN. But his prints weren't found on it so it was lost/discarded/ignored. Questions of a potential accomplice weren't entertained for a second. When the evidence was sent off to the FBI that evening the lunch remains were not even considered evidence. The Oswald-Did-It-Alone mentality was in full force on day one. Again, this doesn't mean Oswald didn't do it, it just means the investigation was so incompetent and so blinkered that it can come as no surprise it is still being questioned today.
Just to remind you:




How crazy is this?

It doesn't strike me as a big deal that the boxes were moved in the search for evidence and perhaps no one remembered exactly how they were found.  Again, not ideal but so what?  Oswald's rifle was found.  Fired bullet casings from that rifle were found.  His prints are on all the relevant evidence.  After nearly 60 years of every official investigation and many "researchers" looking under every rock, there is still no credible evidence of the involvement of anyone other than Oswald.  There are some folks who would not accept that Oswald was the assassin even if they had a time machine. 

Just because we can never know everything with absolute certainty doesn't mean we can't know anything or reach reasonable conclusions about what happened.   That is the basic distinction between LNers and CTers.  CTers are unable to distinguish information from knowledge.  They become overwhelmed by endless details.  They see anomalies or unimportant details that can't be exlained to their satisfaction as de facto proof of conspiracy. The conclusion or implications they draw from this information doesn't have to add up to any coherent counter narrative or even be mutually consistent.  They can draw inconsistent conclusions from the evidence and not miss a beat (e.g. the purpose of the conspirators was to start a war with Cuba but the conspirators framed Oswald and ignored evidence of Cuban involvement).  Until someone can explain the presence of Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor and why Oswald lied to the DPD about his ownership of that rifle, there is no real uncertainty about the only issue that really matters.  Who killed JFK?  The evidence confirms that is LHO even if we can't answer every question about that day with certainty.

[Dan O'meara]

It doesn't strike me as a big deal that the boxes were moved in the search for evidence and perhaps no one remembered exactly how they were found.  Again, not ideal but so what?  Oswald's rifle was found.  Fired bullet casings from that rifle were found.  His prints are on all the relevant evidence.  After nearly 60 years of every official investigation and many "researchers" looking under every rock, there is still no credible evidence of the involvement of anyone other than Oswald.  There are some folks who would not accept that Oswald was the assassin even if they had a time machine. 

Just because we can never know everything with absolute certainty doesn't mean we can't know anything or reach reasonable conclusions about what happened.   That is the basic distinction between LNers and CTers.  CTers are unable to distinguish information from knowledge.  They become overwhelmed by endless details.  They see anomalies or unimportant details that can't be exlained to their satisfaction as de facto proof of conspiracy. The conclusion or implications they draw from this information doesn't have to add up to any coherent counter narrative or even be mutually consistent.  They can draw inconsistent conclusions from the evidence and not miss a beat (e.g. the purpose of the conspirators was to start a war with Cuba but the conspirators framed Oswald and ignored evidence of Cuban involvement).  Until someone can explain the presence of Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor and why Oswald lied to the DPD about his ownership of that rifle, there is no real uncertainty about the only issue that really matters.  Who killed JFK?  The evidence confirms that is LHO even if we can't answer every question about that day with certainty.

"The conclusion or implications they draw from this information doesn't have to add up to any coherent counter narrative or even be mutually consistent"

It is surely time for a coherent counter-narrative to be produced that (non-mental) CTers can get behind as there are aspects of this case that do not sit well with the LN narrative (nearly everyone who was on the 6th floor lying in their various statements, the Rose Cherami case, Shelley in New Orleans etc.)
Until then it's just endless rabbit-hole 

I disagree about the importance of having two completely different photos of the crime scene in evidence and just repeating "Oswald's rifle" isn't addressing the issues being raised in this thread. I get the impression, because of the bitterness generated by the fringe (see Otto's post above), you can't engage in any sensible discussion about the incompetence/corruption of the investigation without half a dozen arseholes jumping down your throat.

It's all really f^*king annoying.

Other than the points raised in this post, it is very difficult to argue with anything you're saying.

[Richard Smith]

"Oswald's rifle" - - LOL

No Warren wanker, including you, have so far been able to support that claim.

Can't wait to see you go down in flames trying just one more time, please!

The evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle is well documented.  Maybe instead of my recounting it once again you can tell us what evidence is lacking.  There are photos, forms, serial numbers and even prints that link Oswald to a specific rifle.  The one found on the 6th floor.  But if that doesn't do it, perhaps outline for us how investigators link a suspect to a weapon and what is lacking in this context.

[Patrick Jackson]

So having two completely different set-ups in evidence is ok with you?
You're satisfied with that?
It doesn't tell you something about the incompetent/corrupt nature of the investigation?

You are right. I was comparing boxes photos a lot and there are many differences that it is absolutely impossible to determine which is the exact set up Oswald left behind. You simply cannot state that any photo of the sniper nest is the exact what DPD found. Crime scene was interupted in who knows which and how many ways.

[Richard Smith]

There's no "but" as you haven't put anything on the table so far "in this context" (but nice try).

Ownership is fine with me; if Oswald owned the rifle it's Oswald's rifle.

Even "well documented", so you should have no problems getting started.

I'm not following what you mean by "Ownership is fine with me."  I thought you were disputing that the rifle belonged to Oswald?  The WC detailed the evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle.  It's been a matter of public record for almost six decades.  Do you just want me to recite that again?  I"m assuming that you are aware of that evidence. Why play silly games to avoid a direct question?  If you are disputing that it was Oswald's rifle, then simply specify why you reached that conclusion (e.g. cite what evidence is lacking).

[Martin Weidmann]

I'm not following what you mean by "Ownership is fine with me."  I thought you were disputing that the rifle belonged to Oswald?  The WC detailed the evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle.  It's been a matter of public record for almost six decades.  Do you just want me to recite that again?  I"m assuming that you are aware of that evidence. Why play silly games to avoid a direct question?  If you are disputing that it was Oswald's rifle, then simply specify why you reached that conclusion (e.g. cite what evidence is lacking).

You still haven't figured why you can not definitively conclude from the available evidence that Oswald owned a rifle or even the MC rifle that was found at the TSBD.

As per usual you can only assume it is, by simply ignoring all sorts of possible variables

The WC detailed the evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle.

No, they simply claimed it was on the say so based on extremely questionable evidence.

[Richard Smith]

You still haven't figured why you can not definitively conclude from the available evidence that Oswald owned a rifle or even the MC rifle that was found at the TSBD.

As per usual you can only assume it is, by simply ignoring all sorts of possible variables

The WC detailed the evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle.

No, they simply claimed it was on the say so based on extremely questionable evidence.

Did I miss the part where you specified what evidence is lacking from the record that would satisfy you of Oswald's ownership of the rifle?  Photos - check.  Order form - check.  Oswald's palm print - check.  Serial number match - check.   Oswald's alias used to order the rifle - check.   Oswald's PO Box address - check.  Absent a time machine, it is difficult to imagine what more evidence of this fact would reasonably be expected to exist.

[Martin Weidmann]

Did I miss the part where you specified what evidence is lacking from the record that would satisfy you of Oswald's ownership of the rifle?  Photos - check.  Order form - check.  Oswald's palm print - check.  Serial number match - check.   Oswald's alias used to order the rifle - check.   Oswald's PO Box address - check.  Absent a time machine, it is difficult to imagine what more evidence of this fact would reasonably be expected to exist.

Did I miss the part where you specified what evidence is lacking from the record that would satisfy you of Oswald's ownership of the rifle? 

No you didn't miss it. You ignored it as per usual.

Photos - check. Photos of a man holding a rifle does not prove ownership of that rifle

Order form - check. You mean photocopy of a (now gone missing) microfilm and the opinion of one FBI handwriting expert?

Oswald's palm print - check. Which surfaces days after Oswald was killed on an evidence card. The FBI examined the rifle during the night after the assassination and found no prints.

Serial number match - check Match with what? A photocopy of an internal Klein's document which had mainly printed or typed information on it, and conviently a handwritten serial number? That kind of match?

Oswald's alias used to order the rifle - check. Really? Other than your assumptions, where is the proof for that?

Oswald's PO Box address - check. Is it a crime to have a postoffice box, now? If indeed he actually had one. It's so hard to tell with so many things going missing, like part of the paperwork for the P.O. box. But let's say that Oswald owned a PO box, how does that prove he owned a rifle?

Absent a time machine, it is difficult to imagine what more evidence of this fact would reasonably be expected to exist.

What "fact" would that be? You've given me some highly questionable "evidence" that doesn't even come close to proving any fact. It does however show once again just how shallow, gullible and naive you truly are.

You actually believe that by parroting the WC fairytale you are somehow proving something. So sad.