Ignoring Evidence in Favor of Oswald

[Bill Chapman]

Say "please" -- LOL

Why would I "bugger off" when I'm having so much fun exposing your lies?

Judging from your increasingly unhinged rants I'm on the right track.

Point out one lie.
For that matter, also point out a 'rant.'

[Bill Chapman]

Here's one, highlighted:

Here's one:

Easy.

Stombaugh explains lack of fibers
Cited, no lying required:
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/stombaugh.htm

Face-palming CTer selfies:
Mockery; no rant necessary

[Walt Cakebread]

Stombaugh can and did:

"The blanket is very well worn. Most of the nap has been worn off of it. It has had a lot of use, and much of the original composition has been worn off " Paul Stombaugh

"One would need a brand new blanket to get a good quantitative analysis." Paul Stombaugh

Any hints in there for ya, thinker?

Lil Chappie, I'm not surprised that you accept and believe this obvious BS....... Simpleton's will believe the most outrageous BS.....

[Bill Chapman]

Stombaugh did not explain what Walt asked you to explain.

You lied misrepresenting evidence.

A rant is a rant whether it's needed or not.

Re no blanket fibers on rifle:

1) Waldo: "Can you explain how that could be possible if that rifle had been wrapped in that blanket  for two months "
2)  Stombaugh showed how that 'could be possible'.

Mockery is mockery no matter how you need to couch it

[Bill Chapman]

Lil Chappie, I'm not surprised that you accept and believe this obvious BS....... Simpleton's will believe the most outrageous BS.....

I'll go with the science while you continue to serve up nothingburgers.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Stombaugh can and did:

"The blanket is very well worn. Most of the nap has been worn off of it. It has had a lot of use, and much of the original composition has been worn off " Paul Stombaugh

"One would need a brand new blanket to get a good quantitative analysis." Paul Stombaugh

Any hints in there for ya, thinker?

Bill: Re the absence of fibers on the rifle. This is from "Marina and Lee". After being informed by Ruth about the news on the TV reporting that JFK had been shot, Marina:

"Crept into the garage, to the place where Lee kept his rifle wrapped in paper inside the heavy blanket, a green and brown wool blanket of East German make that he had bought in Russia...."

"Wrapped in paper inside the heavy blanket." From this account the rifle was wrapped in paper and then placed inside the blanket. So that would prevent/stop fibers from the blanket being attached/clinging to the rifle.

On the other hand, Marina testified that she looked inside the blanket one time and saw the wood stock of the rifle. So if it was wrapped in paper why would she be able to see the stock?

[Vincent Baxter]

No, I'm saying there is no evidence of Oswald double wrapping anything.

It's called burdon of proof.

Your claim, you back it up with evidence or STFU.

No, I dismissed that since you provided no supporting evidence

Except it wasn't exactly my "claim". Cakebread asked for an explanation as to how the rifle had no fibres from the blanket and I merely put forward a possible explanation. I wasn't saying it was FACT and that that was exactly what happened. It was a logical explanation that could have been the reason why though.
But because there is no hard evidence this happened (and more importantly because it doesn't fit in with your version of the events) you immediately disregard it and insist it's wrong.
Marina said the rifle was in the garage and that it was wrapped in the blanket but as far as I know she never stated it was wrapped in that blanket and that blanket alone. So how are you so certain that it wasn't double wrapped if there's no evidence to suggest otherwise?

The FBI concluded as they did and you refuse to accept.

So now you want us to take the FBI's conclusions as the final word?
The FBI also concluded that Oswald acted alone and yet you refuse to accept that.
Make up your mind.

I offered you a plausible explanation for your fibers and you start whining.

"Whining"? Hahaha!
I don't recall any whining. This reminds me of your claim that Bill Chapman was having a rant when he clearly wasn't.
If you want to act all high and mighty and holier than thou you should maybe learn the definition of some of the words you're using before throwing accusations about.

But then of course its totally OK for you to make statements that aren't backed up by EVIDENCE or FACTS like your claim on this thread that Oswald was certain nobody else knew his address. Where's your evidence to back this statement up? No evidence clearly means your proclamation is wrong (or at least according to you it does).

Burden of prof is on you, I'm not obliged to prove anything to counter your unsupported claim.

I'm surprised you still don't get it.

I totally get it. I'm well aware there are so many unanswered questions to this case that currently has no evidence whatsoever to lead to a definite conclusion, and probably never will have. Thats the whole point of this forum; to discuss things like that.
You're happy to make unsupported statements in order to score a point in a petty argument (as we've just seen). You're happy to conveniently ignore a statement that may be unsupported by evidence when it fits your argument but as soon as someone suggests something otherwise you pipe up with the tiresome "EVIDENCE or didn't happen" demand.

I wouldn't mind if you even did it with wit or was an obvious troll just looking for a reaction on here but on the whole your posts are just so boring.

Because nobody has produced any evidence of Oswald taking a spombleprofglidnoctobuns during the last week of his life you'd argue that anyone who suggested that he must of done is obviously wrong.

[Bill Chapman]

Bill: Re the absence of fibers on the rifle. This is from "Marina and Lee". After being informed by Ruth about the news on the TV reporting that JFK had been shot, Marina:

"Crept into the garage, to the place where Lee kept his rifle wrapped in paper inside the heavy blanket, a green and brown wool blanket of East German make that he had bought in Russia...."

"Wrapped in paper inside the heavy blanket." From this account the rifle was wrapped in paper and then placed inside the blanket. So that would prevent/stop fibers from the blanket being attached/clinging to the rifle.

On the other hand, Marina testified that she looked inside the blanket one time and saw the wood stock of the rifle. So if it was wrapped in paper why would she be able to see the stock?

Any chance the paper was dishevelled or torn slightly, enough to see the wood?
It makes sense to wrap the rifle with paper first; then wrap the threadbare blanket around it in a kind of Marine-indoctrination 'this is my rifle this is my gun' best-friend thing.

Full Metal Jacket