Of the many humorous ways that our contrarian CTers attempt to cast doubt on Oswald's guilt
Nobody is “casting doubt”. There just
is doubt. That doubt is not somehow alleviated by somebody who casts no evidence.
perhaps the most pathetic is to analyze each piece of evidence as though it exists in a complete vacuum and has no context or connection to any other evidence.
What’s pathetic is the delusion that several things that are not evidence of anything somehow magically combine to form evidence.
And here we go with the regurgitated litany of misinformation again…
The classic example is Oswald leaving his wedding ring and most of his money at home on the morning of the assassination. We are told by our resident Inspector Clouseau that many people have left or forgotten their wedding ring on any given day without intending to assassinate a president. Therefore, Oswald doing so is not evidence of an intent to assassinate JFK. But how many of those people also left their rifle at the scene of the crime?
“Left their rifle”. LOL.
How many left their prints in the SN's from which the shots were fired with bullet casings from their rifle by the window?
How unusual to leave prints on boxes when your job literally is getting books out of boxes.
How many fled the scene and were arrested for murdering a police officer on that same day?
“Fled”. LOL. Here we learn from our resident fortune teller that if you are arrested for something, not only did you necessarily commit that crime, you committed a different crime as well. By the way, how would you even know how many people left their wedding rings at home in order to evaluate this inane question? A speculation about a ring doesn’t just somehow turn into evidence just because you think some other unrelated thing is evidence.
All of this adds context to Oswald having left his wedding ring at home that morning.
The only context it adds is that people without good reasons for their faith-based beliefs will cling to any ridiculous thing to try to justify them.
A highly symbolic act that demonstrates foreknowledge of his not coming home again after that day.
It demonstrates your confirmation bias, nothing more.
This would all be painfully obvious to any honest and reasonable person but when the evidence overwhelmingly supports Oswald's guilt, the only way to attack that evidence is to operate in a type of contrarian fantasy world where every event has no association to any other.
You can pretend to “associate” any two things. That doesn’t mean there is any connection between them. If your case was really “overwhelming”, you wouldn’t have to resort to nonsense like this for your “evidence”.
By the way, who made the New York Times the arbiter of truth? I have to say, it’s really amusing to see a Trump acolyte so fond of the mainstream media when it suits him.
