11/22/21

[Richard Smith]

If he played this weird game with the conspiracists, with those making claims that Oswald was a CIA agent or the rifle was planted or "X" or "Y" (it's a very long list of claims) - if he challenged their evidence and their conclusions - then this game would be acceptable in a strange sort of way. I'm not familiar with people discussing any other event this way; essentially making every piece of evidence for any claim disappear. But challenging everyone on every side equally would be consistent.

But he applies this impossible standard only to the allegation/belief that Oswald, alone, killed JFK. When it comes to that argument we get this absurd standard of proof that must be surmounted. Then when asked okay, how do this evidence come to be?, who created it? where did it come from?, we get the disappearing act.

You meet all sorts of odd people on the internet. This is one of those occasions.

Using the standard of proof applied by the contrarian to Oswald's guilt, it would be impossible to prove that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln or any other fact in human history.   For example, there is no evidence linking Booth to the gun (e.g. a photo of him holding it, serial numbers, order forms, prints), no evidence linking the gun to the assassination, chain of custody problems with the gun (two different people claimed to have found it), no one saw Booth shoot Lincoln as that term is pedantically interpreted by the contrarian (they just heard a loud bang and turned to look seeing Booth at that moment holding a smoking gun at Lincoln's head - so maybe Lincoln committed suicide and Booth was unlucky enough to just pick it up), Ford's Theatre was Booth's "place of work" so he had every right to be there, there are some witnesses who claimed it wasn't him, and Booth just happened to take a joy ride out of town right after the assassination.  So there must be doubt of his guilt under the contrarian's standard.  It's all the more humorous that he takes himself so seriously.  Claiming to be in "Europe" and challenging Bill Brown to a debate before chickening out.  LOL.

[Martin Weidmann]

Using the standard of proof applied by the contrarian to Oswald's guilt, it would be impossible to prove that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln or any other fact in human history.   For example, there is no evidence linking Booth to the gun (e.g. a photo of him holding it, serial numbers, order forms, prints), no evidence linking the gun to the assassination, chain of custody problems with the gun (two different people claimed to have found it), no one saw Booth shoot Lincoln as that term is pedantically interpreted by the contrarian (they just heard a loud bang and turned to look seeing Booth at that moment holding a smoking gun at Lincoln's head - so maybe Lincoln committed suicide and Booth was unlucky enough to just pick it up), Ford's Theatre was Booth's "place of work" so he had every right to be there, there are some witnesses who claimed it wasn't him, and Booth just happened to take a joy ride out of town right after the assassination.  So there must be doubt of his guilt under the contrarian's standard.  It's all the more humorous that he takes himself so seriously.  Claiming to be in "Europe" and challenging Bill Brown to a debate before chickening out.  LOL.

Using the standard of proof applied by the contrarian to Oswald's guilt, it would be impossible to prove that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln or any other fact in human history. 

Oh the dramatics....  In reality it's the cheapest cop out there is; not willing to present evidence or defend it because of a pathetic claim that it won't be enough to convince a crititical thinker anyway

For example, there is no evidence linking Booth to the gun (e.g. a photo of him holding it, serial numbers, order forms, prints), no evidence linking the gun to the assassination, chain of custody problems with the gun (two different people claimed to have found it), no one saw Booth shoot Lincoln as that term is pedantically interpreted by the contrarian (they just heard a loud bang and turned to look seeing Booth at that moment holding a smoking gun at Lincoln's head - so maybe Lincoln committed suicide and Booth was unlucky enough to just pick it up), Ford's Theatre was Booth's "place of work" so he had every right to be there, there are some witnesses who claimed it wasn't him, and Booth just happened to take a joy ride out of town right after the assassination.  So there must be doubt of his guilt under the contrarian's standard.

What a silly rant to make no point whatsoever. But by this "logic" I can not be considered a contrarian as I have no doubt about Booth's guilt.

It's all the more humorous that he takes himself so seriously.  Claiming to be in "Europe" and challenging Bill Brown to a debate before chickening out.

Misrepresentations one can expect from a spoiled entitled brat who doesn't get his way and is desperately trying to pivot away from his own failures. Is this really what you are reduced to?

But the biggest irony is that this is coming from the same guy who earlier complained about this;

Then you make it personal with a lot of commentary.   

Another classic example of an entitled one; doing himself what he falsely claims others are doing to him.

and btw, why are you so obsessed with where in the world I am?

[Richard Smith]

Using the standard of proof applied by the contrarian to Oswald's guilt, it would be impossible to prove that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln or any other fact in human history. 

Oh the dramatics....  In reality it's the cheapest cop out there is; not willing to present evidence or defend it because of a pathetic claim that it won't be enough to convince a crititical thinker anyway

For example, there is no evidence linking Booth to the gun (e.g. a photo of him holding it, serial numbers, order forms, prints), no evidence linking the gun to the assassination, chain of custody problems with the gun (two different people claimed to have found it), no one saw Booth shoot Lincoln as that term is pedantically interpreted by the contrarian (they just heard a loud bang and turned to look seeing Booth at that moment holding a smoking gun at Lincoln's head - so maybe Lincoln committed suicide and Booth was unlucky enough to just pick it up), Ford's Theatre was Booth's "place of work" so he had every right to be there, there are some witnesses who claimed it wasn't him, and Booth just happened to take a joy ride out of town right after the assassination.  So there must be doubt of his guilt under the contrarian's standard.

What a silly rant to make no point whatsoever. But by this "logic" I can not be considered a contrarian as I have no doubt about Booth's guilt.

It's all the more humorous that he takes himself so seriously.  Claiming to be in "Europe" and challenging Bill Brown to a debate before chickening out.

Misrepresentations one can expect from a spoiled entitled brat who doesn't get his way and is desperately trying to pivot away from his own failures. Is this really what you are reduced to?

But the biggest irony is that this is coming from the same guy who earlier complained about this;

Another classic example of an entitled one; doing himself what he falsely claims others are doing to him.

and btw, why are you so obsessed with where in the world I am?

So much silly commentary.  How about trying to focus?  Do you accept that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln or not?  Prove to us that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln using the same standard of proof that you apply to Oswald.  There are no photos, documents, serial numbers or prints that link Booth to the alleged murder weapon as there are in Oswald's case.  There is no evidence that links the gun to the bullet fired into Lincoln's head.  No witness saw Booth carry the pistol into Ford's.  Two different people claimed to discover the pistol dropped by Booth (here's a chance to invoke your defense attorney "chain of custody" argument).  Booth was an actor who worked at Ford's so his presence there is expected.  No one saw him shoot Lincoln as you interpret that term in Oswald's case.  Some eyewitnesses cast doubt that it was Booth.  Booth might just have decided to get some air after the play by taking a nice horseback ride into the countryside after the assassination.  The fact that he didn't pause to figure out what was going on but instead ran across the stage and out the back door are not evidence of flight.  Just like Oswald boogying to the movies.  And Booth was killed before he was given a trial.  So is Booth responsible for the Lincoln assassination or not under your contrarian defense attorney standard?

[Martin Weidmann]

Do you accept that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln or not?

Entirely irrelevant to the JFK case.

Confused LN nutbag syndrom confirmed.

Wow!

Indeed. "Richard" is desperate to get as far away as he can from presenting evidence of Oswald's guilt and/or defending that evidence. 

So much silly commentary.  How about trying to focus?  Do you accept that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln or not?  Prove to us that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln using the same standard of proof that you apply to Oswald.  There are no photos, documents, serial numbers or prints that link Booth to the alleged murder weapon as there are in Oswald's case.  There is no evidence that links the gun to the bullet fired into Lincoln's head.  No witness saw Booth carry the pistol into Ford's.  Two different people claimed to discover the pistol dropped by Booth (here's a chance to invoke your defense attorney "chain of custody" argument).  Booth was an actor who worked at Ford's so his presence there is expected.  No one saw him shoot Lincoln as you interpret that term in Oswald's case.  Some eyewitnesses cast doubt that it was Booth.  Booth might just have decided to get some air after the play by taking a nice horseback ride into the countryside after the assassination.  The fact that he didn't pause to figure out what was going on but instead ran across the stage and out the back door are not evidence of flight.  Just like Oswald boogying to the movies.  And Booth was killed before he was given a trial.  So is Booth responsible for the Lincoln assassination or not under your contrarian defense attorney standard?

Do you accept that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln or not?

I already told you. Yes I do accept that. You are the one not focussing.

Prove to us that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln 

Why? This is the JFK assassination forum.... Are you confused?


using the same standard of proof that you apply to Oswald.

your contrarian defense attorney standard

And what exactly is that standard supposed to be? Otto has also asked you twice already, so be precise....

[Steve M. Galbraith]

If you believe you challenge the conspiracists claims with anywhere near the effort you engage in when challenging the claim that Oswald shot JFK then I agree: someone is making things up.

So, now you are already changing from implying that I never challenge CTs to that I don't challenge them enough. Shifting the goalposts, as you are doing, confirms that you are the one making stuff up.

It seems that you haven't figured out yet that I am no crusader. If a silly claim pops up in a conversation I'm already having, then I might respond to it, but other than than I couldn't care less if some wacko claims that JFK was killed by aliens. I'm not going to waste my time responding to something like that. Instead I just ignore it. If you feel the need to respond to those wacky theories, be my guest, but don't expect others to do the same.

What I don't understand is why you and Richard Smith are constantly complaining about the evidence being scrutinized. If the evidence is only half as conclusive and persuasive as you two claim it is, then it shouldn't be a problem if somebody takes a closer look, right? Yet, here you are again, complaining about exactly that. What's up with that? Feeling insecure, perhaps?

Try this one: There's a thread on the latest Oliver Stone movie claiming a conspiracy. Go there and challenge Stone's allegations. Let's see you use the same skepticism about evidence against Oswald against Stone's claims.

I haven't seen Stone's latest movie, nor am I interested in watching it. I wasn't impressed by his original JFK movie either.

I take it this means you don't really want to enter into a discussion about the actual physical evidence in this case? Because that's what I asked you, right? Thank you for proving my point. 

I clearly wrote what I meant. Nothing "implied" in it. I said nothing about you "never" challenging the conspiracists. I've not read all of your posts over these 5+ years; how would I know everything about all of your posts over these years?

BTW, which conspiracy claim HAVE you challenged? Name one. Go ahead. Let's hear it.

My claim is right there for everyone to read. I explicitly said you don't use the same standard when looking at the evidence against Oswald as you do when looking at the evidence/claims about a conspiracy. You don't. I never wrote "enough" either. I said with the same standard. It's all right there.

End of story.

Second, you can do whatever you want here. Duncan has the final word. I don't think I've responded to your posts more than a handful of times in five years. And I was responding to Richard Smith's post not yours.

If you only want to scrutinize to any degree the LN side but give the conspiracists side largely a pass and claim not to be a conspiracy believer then people will notice the double standard and question it. It's a mean internet; you'll just have to ride it out.

As to Stone: You've proved my point. Instead of responding to the claims made by him - a noted figure making very serious public conspiracy claims - and "scrutinizing" them you want to respond to obscure people like me and Richard who believe that Oswald alone killed JFK. Which is more important to take on? Stone or me?

And that is that.

[Martin Weidmann]

One: I clearly wrote what I meant. Nothing "implied" in it. I said nothing about you "never" challenging the conspiracists. I've not read all of your posts over these 5+ years; how would I know?.

My claim is right there for everyone to read. I explicitly said you don't use the same standard when looking at the evidence against Oswald as you do when looking at the evidence/claims about a conspiracy. You don't. I never wrote "enough" either. I said with the same standard. It's all right there.

End of story.

Second, you can do whatever you want here. Duncan has the final word. I don't think I've responded to your posts more than a handful of times in five years. If you only want to scrutinize to any degree the LN side but give the conspiracists side a pass and claim not to be a conspiracy believer then people will notice the double standard and question your logic.

As to Stone: You've proved my point. Instead of responding to the claims made by him - a noted figure making very serious public conspiracy claims - and "scrutinizing" them you want to respond to obscure people like me and Richard who believe that Oswald alone killed JFK. Which is more important to take on? Stone or me?

And that is that.

I explicitly said you don't use the same standard when looking at the evidence against Oswald as you do when looking at the evidence/claims about a conspiracy. You don't.

Now isn't that amazing. Just after saying that you don't know if I ever challenge CTs, because;

I've not read all of your posts over these 5+ years; how would I know?.

you now claim that, despite that, you do know that I don't use the same standard (whatever that might be).

You are not making sense. You either have read all my post, and you do know, or you haven't and you are just making stuff up.

Second, you can do whatever you want here. Duncan has the final word. I don't think I've responded to your posts more than a handful of times in five years. If you only want to scrutinize to any degree the LN side but give the conspiracists side a pass and claim not to be a conspiracy believer then people will notice the double standard and question your logic.

I don't need your permission to do whatever I want here and I certainly do not need your whining whenever you feel that I am not doing what you want me to do. There is a double standard here and it's obvious to all, but it's yours and not mine.

Your so-called "logic" doesn't make any sense. If I am only interested, as I am, in finding out for myself if the case against Oswald holds up under scrutiny, then I don't have to bother with conspiracy theories nor do I have to be a conspiracy theorist. There is no such requirement, except perhaps in the feeble mind of a die hard LN who considers anybody who does not agree with him a conspiracy theorist.

As to Stone: You've proved my point. Instead of responding to the claims made by him - a noted figure making very serious public conspiracy claims - and "scrutinizing" them you want to respond to obscure people like me and Richard who believe that Oswald alone killed JFK.

Hilarious. I am not going to watch whatever Stone has to say, when I have already told you that I am not interested in that and nor was I impressed with his original JFK movie. So, why would I waste my time? To please a pathetic LN who demands that I not only watch it but also respond to Stone's claims? I don't think so...

you want to respond to obscure people like me and Richard who believe that Oswald alone killed JFK.

If Stone was a member of this forum, I might also respond to what he has to say, but he isn't and you and "Richard" are, and you guys are not only making hilarious claims but also fail to back then up with anything of substance, which is why I reply. Get it?

Which is more important to take on? Stone or me?

Neither. Stone isn't here and you bring nothing to this forum, by way of defense of the evidence against Oswald. But, as I said before, Stone is not here and you are.

And that is that.

Say who?   

[John Iacoletti]

Indeed. "Richard" is desperate to get as far away as he can from presenting evidence of Oswald's guilt and/or defending that evidence.

Isn't it amazing how much time and energy "Richard" devotes on a JFK assassination forum NOT discussing the JFK assassination?

If you wants to question the case against Booth, then go to a Lincoln assassination forum and knock yourself out -- you may even be right, I don't know.  But that has exactly ZERO to do with the validity of your case against Oswald.

[Mark A. Oblazney]

58 years ago today.

What do we know with absolute certainty?

1. Lee Harvey Oswald, by himself and unassisted shot and killed John F. Kennedy.

+