I agree. It should be more about making good points, evaluating ALL the evidence and witness testimony, and then discarding the parts that can reasonably be deemed invalid or unworthy of serious consideration. (IOW, wheat over chaff.)
IMO, the CTers retain way too much chaff and discard virtually all of the wheat (i.e., the actual physical evidence in the case, which all points to Mr. Oswald, of course). That's certainly not the way to solve this (or any) case.
And the reason for that is simple (IMO) --- There is no physical evidence other than the stuff that leads directly to Oswald. No such "non-Oswald" physical evidence was found. It doesn't exist, and never did.
But you don't believe that, do you Martin?
I agree. It should be more about making good points, evaluating ALL the evidence and witness testimony, and then discarding the parts that can reasonably be deemed invalid or unworthy of serious consideration. (IOW, wheat over chaff.)As long as those parts are discarded are the result of actual investigation and not just because they don't fit the narrative you're trying to build. And, as far as I can tell, the latter happened far more in this "investigation", in which Hoover himself had declared Oswald guilty before the evidence was in.
And the reason for that is simple (IMO) --- There is no physical evidence other than the stuff that leads directly to Oswald. No such "non-Oswald" physical evidence was found. It doesn't exist, and never did.So this was the most perfect and to the point investigation ever conducted in the country?
And you actually believe that, do you David?
Btw, you do understand that you are contradicting yourself, right?
You can not claim at the same time that there was no such "non-Oswald" physical evidence and also say that some parts of the evidence were discarded because they can reasonably be deemed invalid or unworthy of serious consideration.
