Why classify information?

[Richard Smith]

Says the guy with the biggest bias of them all.

You don't understand the concept of bias.  Bias means being prejudiced or predisposed to a particular outcome (e.g. starting with a "presumption" that Oswald is innocent).  It is entirely different from looking at the evidence and coming to a neutral conclusion based upon that evidence to determine what happened.  I don't have any bias toward Oswald or whether he was part of a conspiracy.  Why would I care one way or the other?  It is the evidence that makes that determination not me.  The evidence links Oswald to the murders of JFK and Tippit beyond doubt.  There is no credible evidence of Oswald's involvement with anyone else in the commission of these crimes.  Nothing more or less.  You disagree so spare us breaking down every sentence and repeating the same contrarian nonsense.  You clearly apply a different standard to evidence of Oswald's guilt while entertaining baseless "possibilities" that might lend themselves to his innocence.  A double standard.   

[Martin Weidmann]

You don't understand the concept of bias.  Bias means being prejudiced or predisposed to a particular outcome (e.g. starting with a "presumption" that Oswald is innocent).  It is entirely different from looking at the evidence and coming to a neutral conclusion based upon that evidence to determine what happened.  I don't have any bias toward Oswald or whether he was part of a conspiracy.  Why would I care one way or the other?  It is the evidence that makes that determination not me.  The evidence links Oswald to the murders of JFK and Tippit beyond doubt.  There is no credible evidence of Oswald's involvement with anyone else in the commission of these crimes.  Nothing more or less.  You disagree so spare us breaking down every sentence and repeating the same contrarian nonsense.  You clearly apply a different standard to evidence of Oswald's guilt while entertaining baseless "possibilities" that might lend themselves to his innocence.  A double standard.

You don't understand the concept of bias.

Hilarious

Bias means being prejudiced or predisposed to a particular outcome (e.g. starting with a "presumption" that Oswald is innocent).

Or that he's guilty, which is exactly what the WC did and you do on a daily basis

It is entirely different from looking at the evidence and coming to a neutral conclusion based upon that evidence to determine what happened.

BS, there is nothing neutral about you and your conclusions. A truly neutral person would not deny or dismiss major flaws in the evidence, as you do.

I don't have any bias toward Oswald or whether he was part of a conspiracy.  Why would I care one way or the other?

I'm not sure why you would care, but you most certainly do.

It is the evidence that makes that determination not me.  The evidence links Oswald to the murders of JFK and Tippit beyond doubt.

And you really actually believe this crap? The determination that the evidence is "beyond doubt" is made by you. It's your opinion.

You clearly apply a different standard to evidence of Oswald's guilt while entertaining baseless "possibilities" that might lend themselves to his innocence.

Yes I have a different standard than yours. Your bar is so low it almost touches the floor. Mine is considerably higher and requires actual evidence rather than assumptions and speculation to make a case.

[Martin Weidmann]

There have been several official investigations into the assassination.  All have concluded that Oswald was the assassin.  I would refer you to those.  The rifle is obviously the most important single piece of evidence.  Oswald is linked to the rifle and the rifle is linked to the crime.  Make like Sherlock Holmes and figure it out.

Says the guy who claims he has no bias. There has been one investigation which actually developed evidence. All the others simply went over the same evidence. Did you expect a different outcome? Garbage in = Garbage out.

The rifle is obviously the most important single piece of evidence.  Oswald is linked to the rifle and the rifle is linked to the crime.

Oswald's link to the rifle is highly tentative and the link of the rifle to the crime is just as questionable. Anybody who digs a little deeper in the available evidence can not escape that conclusion.

Nobody has ever conclusively place the MC rifle found at the TSBD in Oswald's hands at 12:30 on 11/22/63 and nobody has ever conclusively placed Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD when Kennedy was killed. Beyond that, your case is indeed rock solid 

[Richard Smith]

Says the guy who claims he has no bias. There has been one investigation which actually developed evidence. All the others simply went over the same evidence. Did you expect a different outcome? Garbage in = Garbage out.

The rifle is obviously the most important single piece of evidence.  Oswald is linked to the rifle and the rifle is linked to the crime.

Oswald's link to the rifle is highly tentative and the link of the rifle to the crime is just as questionable. Anybody who digs a little deeper in the available evidence can not escape that conclusion.

Nobody has ever conclusively place the MC rifle found at the TSBD in Oswald's hands at 12:30 on 11/22/63 and nobody has ever conclusively placed Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD when Kennedy was killed. Beyond that, your case is indeed rock solid 

Please let Martin be on the jury if I ever commit a crime.  Imagine a criminal taking measures to avoid detection at the time of his crime!  Oswald's rifle is found at the scene from which a person is murdered with a rifle.  Fired bullet casings from Oswald's rifle are by the window from which witnesses confirm the shots were fired.  Oswald's prints are on the boxes by that window.  Oswald has no alibi at the time the shots are fired.  He lies to the police about his ownership of the rifle.  He flees the scene, kills a police officer in less than an hour later, and resists arrest.  But we don't have a film of him pulling the trigger (which could be faked according to the contrarians) so there is doubt of his guilt!  THERE ARE OTHER POSSIBILITIES.  Maybe Oswald bought the rifle but gave it away to someone and then lied about buying it.  It's "possible."  Right?  Whew.

[Martin Weidmann]

Please let Martin be on the jury if I ever commit a crime.  Imagine a criminal taking measures to avoid detection at the time of his crime!  Oswald's rifle is found at the scene from which a person is murdered with a rifle.  Fired bullet casings from Oswald's rifle are by the window from which witnesses confirm the shots were fired.  Oswald's prints are on the boxes by that window.  Oswald has no alibi at the time the shots are fired.  He lies to the police about his ownership of the rifle.  He flees the scene, kills a police officer in less than an hour later, and resists arrest.  But we don't have a film of him pulling the trigger (which could be faked according to the contrarians) so there is doubt of his guilt!  THERE ARE OTHER POSSIBILITIES.  Maybe Oswald bought the rifle but gave it away to someone and then lied about buying it.  It's "possible."  Right?  Whew.

Pathetic.

No matter how often you refer to the rifle as Oswald's rifle, you've got not a shred of evidence of that being true. You also haven't got a shred of evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 on 11/22/63 and you can't even prove that the rifle that was found on the 6th floor was actually fired that day or that it belonged to Oswald.

This is Mr. "I'm neutral" exposing his true nature. That's all.

Please let Martin be on the jury if I ever commit a crime.

Please let "Richard Smith" never ever be on a jury.

[Richard Smith]

Pathetic.

No matter how often you refer to the rifle as Oswald's rifle, you've got not a shred of evidence of that being true. You also haven't got a shred of evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 on 11/22/63 and you can't even prove that the rifle that was found on the 6th floor was actually fired that day or that it belonged to Oswald.

To claim that there is "not a shred of evidence" that the rifle belonged to Oswald is so far removed from reality as to defy any rational discussion of the topic.  It is difficult to imagine how there could be any more evidence of the fact.  And to suggest that the evidence that does exist is somehow suspect can only be explained away as the product of a conspiracy.  So while you are too cowardly to ever admit that you are a CTer - likely because taking any position requires something more than playing the endless contrarian - it effectively means that you are a CTer who believes evidence that derives from numerous different sources was faked both before and after the fact to frame Oswald.  The Alamo position of those who realize that the facts and circumstances of the case point to Oswald. 

[Martin Weidmann]

To claim that there is "not a shred of evidence" that the rifle belonged to Oswald is so far removed from reality as to defy any rational discussion of the topic.  It is difficult to imagine how there could be any more evidence of the fact.  And to suggest that the evidence that does exist is somehow suspect can only be explained away as the product of a conspiracy.  So while you are too cowardly to ever admit that you are a CTer - likely because taking any position requires something more than playing the endless contrarian - it effectively means that you are a CTer who believes evidence that derives from numerous different sources was faked both before and after the fact to frame Oswald.  The Alamo position of those who realize that the facts and circumstances of the case point to Oswald.

To claim that there is "not a shred of evidence" that the rifle belonged to Oswald is so far removed from reality as to defy any rational discussion of the topic.

Ok big mouth, where is all that evidence? Show us... You've been claiming there is all this "beyond reasonable doubt" evidence, but you've never shown any of it. You're like Trump who also never shows a shred of evidence for his big lie. Instead of constantly holding speeches, why don't you, for once, present the actual evidence you refer to and tell us how it conclusively links Oswald to the rifle and the rifle to the crime.

And to suggest that the evidence that does exist is somehow suspect can only be explained away as the product of a conspiracy.

Paranoid BS. Oswald either owned the rifle that was found at the TSBD or he didn't. You either have the conclusive evidence to show that or you don't. All you need to do is show the evidence that actually proves that ownership. Claiming that it is the product of a conspiracy to simply scrutinize evidence is just your way of laying the groundwork for the inevitable "you're a CT that will never be convinced" claim that will follow when your "evidence" turns out to be inconclusive and weak.

So while you are too cowardly to ever admit that you are a CTer - likely because taking any position requires something more than playing the endless contrarian - it effectively means that you are a CTer who believes evidence that derives from numerous different sources was faked both before and after the fact to frame Oswald.

And there it is. The "I'm not able to procude conclusive evidence that shows Oswald owned the rifle, so I won't show you anything, because you are a CT who will not accept it anyway". It is the weakest cop out of them all, but for you it's daily routine.

[Richard Smith]

To claim that there is "not a shred of evidence" that the rifle belonged to Oswald is so far removed from reality as to defy any rational discussion of the topic.

Ok big mouth, where is all that evidence? Show us... You've been claiming there is evidence, but you've never shown any of it. You're like Trump who also never shows a shred of evidence for his big lie.

And to suggest that the evidence that does exist is somehow suspect can only be explained away as the product of a conspiracy.

Paranoid BS. Oswald either owned the rifle that was found at the TSBD or he didn't. All you need to do is show the evidence that actually proves that ownership. Claiming that it is the product of a conspiracy to scrutinize evidence is just your way of laying the groundwork for the inevitable "you're a CT" claim that will follow when your "evidence" turns out to be inconclusive and weak.

So while you are too cowardly to ever admit that you are a CTer - likely because taking any position requires something more than playing the endless contrarian - it effectively means that you are a CTer who believes evidence that derives from numerous different sources was faked both before and after the fact to frame Oswald.

There you have it. The "I'm not able to procude conclusive evidence that shows Oswald owned the rifle, so I won't show you anything, because you are a CT who will not accept it anyway". It is the weakest cop out of them all, but for you it's daily routine.

Down the rabbit hole we go!  The evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle has been available since 1963.  It has been presented to you on this forum numerous times.  I've discussed it with you numerous times.  You know that evidence.  It is dishonest to suggest that this evidence hasn't been shown to you.  You can't claim there is "not a shred of evidence" that links Oswald to the rifle.  There is plenty of evidence.  Either the evidence links Oswald to this rifle or it is faked as the product of a conspiracy to frame him for the crime.  You can't have it every possible way when these are mutually exclusive concepts.  It isn't a lack of evidence of Oswald's ownership of a rifle that you are suggesting but that the evidence is suspect.  The evidence conclusively links Oswald to the rifle if it is genuine.  That evidence comes from a multitude of different sources.   Much of this evidence existed prior to the assassination.  Thus, if it was faked to frame Oswald for the crime, it was done as a product of a conspiracy to kill JFK.  If you are a proponent of this interpretation of events, then you are a CTer whether you are willing to admit it or not.  Why not come out of the closet and be honest for once?