And you would just shoot it down as not being a "reasonable assessment of the available facts and evidence" if my explanation implicated Oswald. Been there; bought the T-shirt.
Even if some isolated claim about Oswald could be out-and-out dismissed or -- rarely in your case -- be convincingly undermined with a counter-explanation, it would do little to weaken the LN evidence overall.
That's your opinion that "there is no evidence to support it". So far, the CTs' counter-explanations have been lamer. Unfortunately the general public is conspiracy-minded and don't want to do the science.
Thanks for your opinion.
Reasonable judgment, after examining a range of alternatives.
Like, per your OP, Oswald writing the the orderform, envelope and money order and then it not being used? Or Oswald holding somebody else's rifle in the BY photos? That more reasonable? Well, I guess if you can find a judge/jury like-minded.
A jury is tasked with weighing the prosecution scenario against the defense counter-argument, including sometimes an alternative theory. In the OJ Simpson Criminal Trial, the jury chose to believe OJ cut his finger on a broken drinking glass, that Fuhrman was a racist who planted the glove at Rockingham, that the bloodstained socks at Rockingham and blood drops/smears in the Bronco and at Bundy were planted, and that the DNA evidence was contaminated from a blood sample taken from OJ.
And you would just shoot it down as not being a "reasonable assessment of the available facts and evidence" if my explanation implicated Oswald. Been there; bought the T-shirt.Another typical LN cop out. You are a die hard LN, so whatever explanation you give will always implicate Oswald in one way or another. By this "logic" you would never have to answer a question, which of course is utter nonsense. You can either tell us why Oswald used the Hidell alias, if he would not think the rifle was untraceable, or you can't.
Why not be honest and simply say that you have no credible answer to the question?
Even if some isolated claim about Oswald could be out-and-out dismissed or -- rarely in your case -- be convincingly undermined with a counter-explanation, it would do little to weaken the LN evidence overall.The overall LN evidence doesn't need to be undermined with counter-explanations, riddled as it is with speculation and assumptions, it can barely stand up by its own.
That's your opinion that "there is no evidence to support it". So far, the CTs' counter-explanations have been lamer. Unfortunately the general public is conspiracy-minded and don't want to do the science. If you disagree with my opinion that there is no evidence to support it, why don't you prove me wrong by providing the evidence the "probably" claim is based on?
And even if it is true that "CTs' counter-explanations have been lamer" that still does not make your opinion more valid or credible.
Reasonable judgment, after examining a range of alternatives.BS. What other alternatives were examined?
Like, per your OP, Oswald writing the the orderform, envelope and money order and then it not being used? Who said anything about the orderform etc not being used? My question relates to those documents not only having been written by Oswald but also being used.
Or Oswald holding somebody else's rifle in the BY photos? That more reasonable? Well, I guess if you can find a judge/jury like-minded. I haven't owned any weapon all my life, but I was photographed once holding somebody else's rifle. What's unreasonable about that?
Obviously, my two questions in the OP are asked against the background of the possibility that Oswald was being manipulated to set him up as a fall guy. If you consider it impossible that Oswald was or could be manipulated you will never be able to look beyond yourself.
A jury is tasked with weighing the prosecution scenario against the defense counter-argument, including sometimes an alternative theory. In the OJ Simpson Criminal Trial, the jury chose to believe OJ cut his finger on a broken drinking glass, that Fuhrman was a racist who planted the glove at Rockingham, that the bloodstained socks at Rockingham and blood drops/smears in the Bronco and at Bundy were planted, and that the DNA evidence was contaminated from a blood sample taken from OJ.
What are you babbling about? That jury basically accepted the defense argument that, for a number of reasons, including the lack of a solid chain of custody for a blood vial, the evidence presented by the prosecution could not be trusted. In other words; the prosecution did not present a case beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you consider what the OJ jury did a "reasonable assessment of the available facts and evidence" then I do not understand at all what your problem in the case against Oswald is. The OJ jury did exactly what you would not want a jury to do in Oswald's case, despite the fact that the case against OJ was far more solid than the case against Oswald ever was or will be. A jury can not simply overlook weaknesses in the prosecution's case such as assumptions based on what they think "probably" happened.
Now, can/will you answer the two OP questions, or will you continue to waste my time with cop outs and vague excuses?
Here are the two questions again;
1. Let's suppose that Oswald did in fact write the orderform, envelope and money order, how does that justify the conclusion that he ordered the rifle for himself and actually received it?
2. Let's assume that the BY photos are indeed authentic, how do they justify the conclusion that Oswald is holding a rifle that is his property?
