US National Archives: (some) Files to be released today

[Richard Smith]

So much venom from an entitled one who doesn't get his way. Pathetic!

A one trick poney sounding like a broken record stuck in a bad quality groove...

It's your statement we are discussing.

We are not discussing anything of the kind. You desperately want to discuss it. I am not interested in discussing it. If you want you can figure it out yourself and if you don't want to, that's ok by me as well.

You don't accept the evidence that Oswald was the assassin.

Says who? As per usual you're completely missing the mark. I have no problem with the evidence, such as it is. My problem is with the credibility and authentication of that evidence as well as the assumptions made to connect non existing dots and the conclusions that are not supported by that same evidence.

That appears to narrow down the options to being a CTer but you also refuse to come out of the closet and admit you are a CTer.

You really can't let this go, can you now? I've already told you where my interests lie and I am not going to tell you again. Deal with it.... or don't. See if I care.

Oh and btw, talking about chickening out, why haven't you accepted my little Europe challenge?

Great example of taking the discussion down an endless contrarian rabbit hole.  Martin contends that the "answer is in plain sight."  When I ask him to simply explain what he means by this, we get endless deflection and hysterics. 

Here is a classic Martin statement that I defy anyone to make sense of: "I have no problem with the evidence, such as it is. My problem is with the credibility and authentication of that evidence as well as the assumptions made to connect non existing dots and the conclusions that are not supported by that same evidence."  He has "no problem with the evidence" except for the "credibility" and "authentication" of that evidence!  Unreal. 

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Great example of taking the discussion down an endless contrarian rabbit hole.  Martin contends that the "answer is in plain sight."  When I ask him to simply explain what he means by this, we get endless deflection and hysterics. 

Here is a classic Martin statement that I defy anyone to make sense of: "I have no problem with the evidence, such as it is. My problem is with the credibility and authentication of that evidence as well as the assumptions made to connect non existing dots and the conclusions that are not supported by that same evidence."  He has "no problem with the evidence" except for the "credibility" and "authentication" of that evidence!  Unreal.

It's once again putting the evidence in a sort of Twilight Zone. It exists but it doesn't; it's there but it's not; we can discuss it but we can't; you can cite it but you can't.

As in: "Yes, there's a photo of Oswald with the rifle; but it's not credible or authentic."

So how did it come into being? Who made it? If it exists then it came to be. How did that happen? Is it real or is it faked? His answer: both. And neither.

My New Year's Resolution was to stop doing this; just dismiss it. I couldn't make it through a week. Well, there's always 2023.

[John Iacoletti]

What's unreal is that "Richard" doesn't know the difference between evidence and subjective conclusions made about the evidence.

[John Iacoletti]

It's once again putting the evidence in a sort of Twilight Zone. It exists but it doesn't; it's there but it's not; we can discuss it but we can't; you can cite it but you can't.

As in: "Yes, there's a photo of Oswald with the rifle; but it's not credible or authentic."

So how did it come into being? Who made it? If it exists then it came to be. How did that happen?

That's an argument from ignorance fallacy.  You have to actually demonstrate that it is the same rifle to the exclusion of any other rifle, not just assume it.

[Mark A. Oblazney]

Sorry, I don't respond to insults.

And I wouldn't too !!   Best wishes for you, sir, in the following year of 2022+

[Steve M. Galbraith]

That's an argument from ignorance fallacy.  You have to actually demonstrate that it is the same rifle to the exclusion of any other rifle, not just assume it.

Which was done but you reject their conclusions. You don't show where they were wrong, you just dismiss their conclusions. The HSCA photographic experts, for example, studied the photos microscopically. They concluded the rifle in the photo was the rifle recovered from the TSBD.

But you say they're wrong. Can they be wrong? Of course. But you have to show it. But you say I have to somehow prove they are right. And impossible standard. You reject them OUT OF HAND. So does Weidmann. Then you can't give an alternate explanation for the existence of this evidence.

So where do we go? We cite "A" and "B" and "C" and you folks deny the existence of "A" and "B" and "C". We have to somehow - by your standard - demonstrate that "A" and "B" and "C" exist. We can't. Then when we ask, "Okay how did this come into being if it's not legitimate?" we get no response. 

There is no way we can prove to your satisfaction that the rifle belonged to Oswald. Et cetera, et cetera. None.

Meanwhile, we have all of these conspiracy claims being made - the Stone movie - and you skeptics are nowhere to be found. Pardon me if we have doubts about your claims about not being conspiracists.

And that, as they say is that. It's a New Year and I'm moving on. But this is like being in the Mob (so they say); once you're in it you're in for life. <g>.

[John Iacoletti]

Which was done but you reject their conclusions. You don't show where they were wrong, you just dismiss their conclusions. The HSCA photographic experts, for example, studied the photos microscopically. They concluded the rifle in the photo was the rifle recovered from the TSBD.

Conclusions aren't evidence.  In this case, one panel member, Sgt Kirk, thought the single mark he saw in CE 133A "tilted the scales".  That's not to the exclusion of any other rifle.  No analysis or measurements of any kind were offered.  I get that you like the conclusion, but that doesn't make it justified.

Frankly, it's mind-boggling that this level of proof is sufficient for you to accept the conclusion.  It's as if you don't care how a conclusion is arrived at as long as it confirms what you already believe.

There is no way we can prove to your satisfaction that the rifle belonged to Oswald.

That's correct, because there is no proof of that.  At best you can demonstrate that unscientific and biased handwriting "analysis" of two block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon (from microfilm that is "missing") purports that he filled out an order coupon for a similar but not identical firearm.  You have no evidence that the CE 139 rifle ever went through the postal service, was delivered to a post office in Dallas, or was ever signed for and picked up by Oswald or anybody else.  You have no conclusive evidence that CE139 belonged to Oswald or even was ever in the possession of Oswald on 11/22/63, or ever.

That's why we "LOL" at the expression "Oswald's rifle".

Meanwhile, we have all of these conspiracy claims being made - the Stone movie - and you skeptics are nowhere to be found. Pardon me if we have doubts about your claims about not being conspiracists.

What "conspiracy claim" in Stone's movie would you like me to be skeptical of?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

And I wouldn't too !!   Best wishes for you, sir, in the following year of 2022+

Thanks and same to you Mark!