Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory

[Martin Weidmann]

The "bottom line" is that I can't convince you because you are a contrarian loon who applies an impossible subjective standard of proof to the topic.  Can you understand why that is not necessary?  That is actually a rhetorical question since I realize that you are incapable of such.

Hilarious!   

The fanatical cry baby "prosecutor" is complaining to the Judge that his highly questionable evidence can't covince a jury member, who is applying a basic standard of proof. LOL

But thank you for this display of ignorance and arrogance (*) as well as confirming that you don't have the evidence to prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. 


(*) a reasonable person will re-examine his arguments when his "evidence" or lack thereof fails to convince somebody. An ignorant and arrogant person continues to believe his own BS and simply blames the person he can't convince.

[Richard Smith]

(*) a reasonable person will re-examine his arguments when his "evidence" or lack thereof fails to convince somebody. An ignorant and arrogant person continues to believe his own BS and simply blames the person he can't convince.

That's pure comedy gold considering the source.

[Martin Weidmann]

That's pure comedy gold considering the source.

No need to display your ignorance and arrogance again.

[Richard Smith]

No need to display your ignorance and arrogance again.

Are you 12 years old?  Honestly, the hysterics are embarrassing. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Are you 12 years old?  Honestly, the hysterics are embarrassing.

Oh boy... I guess being confronted with the truth is something your ego can't handle very well. Poor boy....

Talk about comedy gold;

The "bottom line" is that I can't convince you because you are a contrarian loon who applies an impossible subjective standard of proof to the topic. 

Nearly just as funny as when you claimed that the evidence for Oswald coming down the stairs was that it happened

[John Iacoletti]

We have gone over this a thousand times.  You know the evidence. What psychological impulse wants to go over it again and again? 

Because all you ever do is regurgitate the same old BS that doesn’t prove a damn thing.

“A rifle belonging to Oswald” 

“Oswald is the only person known to have access to this rifle” 

“It was stored in a garage” 

“His prints are found on it” 

“He was photographed holding it” 

“trip to the location where the rifle was stored” 

“later lied to the police about carrying a long bag” 

“Oswald's rifle” 

“Confirmation that Oswald's rifle was used in the crime” 

“lies to them about ownership of any rifle” 

”No other TSBD employee left prints on those boxes” 

“long bag next to that window”