Ron Paul Says Kennedy Was Murdered

[Martin Weidmann]

Why do you keep insisting that the scope was "misaligned" when the condition of that scope at the moment Oswald fired the shots can't be known?  Oswald's prints WERE on the rifle.  How many criminals are in jail because they left an identifiable print at the crime scene or on the murder weapon?  LOL.  Baseless claims like there should have been MORE of his prints on the rifle are laughable as a defense.   If you are suggesting the print found was the product of fakery to frame Oswald, then why didn't the authorities just claim they found a dozen such prints.

at the moment Oswald fired the shots

huh? You can prove he fired the shots? Really? That would really settle the 60 years debate. Why don't you get in touch with the media? I'm sure they would be very interested in this information!

Oswald's prints WERE on the rifle

No. The FBI examined the rifle early Saturday morning and found no prints at all.

So, why do you keep insisting that Oswald's prints were on the rifle?

If you are suggesting the print found was the product of fakery to frame Oswald, then why didn't the authorities just claim they found a dozen such prints.

Are you really rather foolishly suggesting that because they only "found" one print, it can't be the product of evidence manipulation? Seriously?

[Richard Smith]

at the moment Oswald fired the shots

huh? You can prove he fired the shots? Really? That would really settle the 60 years debate. Why don't you get in touch with the media? I'm sure they would be very interested in this information!

Oswald's prints WERE on the rifle

No. The FBI examined the rifle early Saturday morning and found no prints at all.

So, why do you keep insisting that Oswald's prints were on the rifle?

If you are suggesting the print found was the product of fakery to frame Oswald, then why didn't the authorities just claim they found a dozen such prints.

Are you really rather foolishly suggesting that because they only "found" one print, it can't be the product of evidence manipulation? Seriously?

Round and round we go.  We are told that the FBI was involved in the assassination and/or plot to frame Oswald but then they are cited to claim that his prints were not on the rifle!  HA HA HA.  If you are going to lie about the evidence and suggest fabrication, at least frame your argument in a consistent way.  You also misunderstand the points being made.  I was responding to someone who baselessly claimed that the authorities should have found many prints instead of just one on the rifle.  One print links Oswald to the rifle.  Many criminals are in jail for leaving one print at the crime scene or on the murder weapon.  It is baseless and stupid to argue that finding Oswald's print on the murder weapon is actually indicative of his innocence instead of guilt!  Even you should be able to understand the astounding absurdity of that viewpoint.  It is upside down Alice-in-Wonderland logic.  And if the authorities were willing to fabricate evidence and claim to have found Oswald's print, why not just claim they found a dozen on the rifle?  Astounding.  You should be embarrassed.

[Martin Weidmann]

Round and round we go.  We are told that the FBI was involved in the assassination and/or plot to frame Oswald but then they are cited to claim that his prints were not on the rifle!  HA HA HA.  If you are going to lie about the evidence and suggest fabrication, at least frame your argument in a consistent way.  You also misunderstand the points being made.  I was responding to someone who baselessly claimed that the authorities should have found many prints instead of just one on the rifle.  One print links Oswald to the rifle.  Many criminals are in jail for leaving one print at the crime scene or on the murder weapon.  It is baseless and stupid to argue that finding Oswald's print on the murder weapon is actually indicative of his innocence instead of guilt!  Even you should be able to understand the astounding absurdity of that viewpoint.  It is upside down Alice-in-Wonderland logic.  And if the authorities were willing to fabricate evidence and claim to have found Oswald's print, why not just claim they found a dozen on the rifle?  Astounding.  You should be embarrassed.

We are told that the FBI was involved in the assassination and/or plot to frame Oswald but then they are cited to claim that his prints were not on the rifle!  HA HA HA.

Can you get even more simplistic than this? Do you think the entire FBI, a massive organisation, would be involved? What a shallow little man you truly are!

If you are going to lie about the evidence

Lying about evidence is actually your department, but I'll play along. What evidence did I lie about?

One print links Oswald to the rifle. 

No fool, there is no print that links Oswald to the rifle. All there is, is a print on an evidence card that Lt Day produced days after Oswald's death claiming he lifted it from the rifle. And then you tell me I misunderstand the points being made.... Hilarious!

It is baseless and stupid to argue that finding Oswald's print on the murder weapon is actually indicative of his innocence instead of guilt! Even you should be able to understand the astounding absurdity of that viewpoint.

Yes I do. That's why I never argued anything of the kind. You just made it up.

And if the authorities were willing to fabricate evidence and claim to have found Oswald's print, why not just claim they found a dozen on the rifle?

Because less is more often than not more! But this is the second time you raised this stupid argument and it seems you don't even understand just how stupid it is.

The fact that they did not claim to have found a dozen prints on the rifle but only one doesn't mean that the one print that allegedly was found is authentic.

And btw, in this case, it wasn't the "authorities" who fabricated evidence. At best it was on man (Day) and the "authorities" were more than willing to accept it, no questions asked.

Now, can you prove Oswald fired the shots or was that just another one of your false claims?

[Jack Trojan]

Round and round we go.  We are told that the FBI was involved in the assassination and/or plot to frame Oswald but then they are cited to claim that his prints were not on the rifle!  HA HA HA.  If you are going to lie about the evidence and suggest fabrication, at least frame your argument in a consistent way.  You also misunderstand the points being made.  I was responding to someone who baselessly claimed that the authorities should have found many prints instead of just one on the rifle.  One print links Oswald to the rifle.  Many criminals are in jail for leaving one print at the crime scene or on the murder weapon.  It is baseless and stupid to argue that finding Oswald's print on the murder weapon is actually indicative of his innocence instead of guilt!  Even you should be able to understand the astounding absurdity of that viewpoint.  It is upside down Alice-in-Wonderland logic.  And if the authorities were willing to fabricate evidence and claim to have found Oswald's print, why not just claim they found a dozen on the rifle?  Astounding.  You should be embarrassed.

I should be embarrassed? You're the one that loses every argument on this site. You are an endless playlist of lame LNer excuses and a textbook disinformationalist, just like the KGB, who are inexorably linked to the JFK assassination and will perpetuate the LNer myth until everyone involved is dead. Not that I am accusing you of being a propagandist troll, because I doubt anyone would pay you to be one. Being a MAGAT-Q member, I figured disinformation was just your hobby.

Ps. If you actually think that Oswald disassembled the rifle, then placed all its parts, including the misaligned scope, into a bag, then brought it into work and up to the 6th floor, then removed the parts from the bag and reassembled the rifle (using a trusty dime), took 3 shots and then ditched the rifle and only left a partial palm print later found between the stock and the barrel...then you must either be a retard or a disinformationalist troll. Either way, you have an embarrassing hobby.

[Richard Smith]

I should be embarrassed? You're the one that loses every argument on this site. You are an endless playlist of lame LNer excuses and a textbook disinformationalist, just like the KGB, who are inexorably linked to the JFK assassination and will perpetuate the LNer myth until everyone involved is dead. Not that I am accusing you of being a propagandist troll, because I doubt anyone would pay you to be one. Being a MAGAT-Q member, I figured disinformation was just your hobby.

Ps. If you actually think that Oswald disassembled the rifle, then placed all its parts, including the misaligned scope, into a bag, then brought it into work and up to the 6th floor, then removed the parts from the bag and reassembled the rifle (using a trusty dime), took 3 shots and then ditched the rifle and only left a partial palm print later found between the stock and the barrel...then you must either be a retard or a disinformationalist troll. Either way, you have an embarrassing hobby.

LOL.  You can't even keep track of who I'm addressing.  That is embarrassing.  What is with your fixation with "Q"?  No one here has ever raised that except for you. 

[Richard Smith]

We are told that the FBI was involved in the assassination and/or plot to frame Oswald but then they are cited to claim that his prints were not on the rifle!  HA HA HA.

Can you get even more simplistic than this? Do you think the entire FBI, a massive organisation, would be involved? What a shallow little man you truly are!

If you are going to lie about the evidence

Lying about evidence is actually your department, but I'll play along. What evidence did I lie about?

One print links Oswald to the rifle. 

No fool, there is no print that links Oswald to the rifle. All there is, is a print on an evidence card that Lt Day produced days after Oswald's death claiming he lifted it from the rifle. And then you tell me I misunderstand the points being made.... Hilarious!

It is baseless and stupid to argue that finding Oswald's print on the murder weapon is actually indicative of his innocence instead of guilt! Even you should be able to understand the astounding absurdity of that viewpoint.

Yes I do. That's why I never argued anything of the kind. You just made it up.

And if the authorities were willing to fabricate evidence and claim to have found Oswald's print, why not just claim they found a dozen on the rifle?

Because less is more often than not more! But this is the second time you raised this stupid argument and it seems you don't even understand just how stupid it is.

The fact that they did not claim to have found a dozen prints on the rifle but only one doesn't mean that the one print that allegedly was found is authentic.

And btw, in this case, it wasn't the "authorities" who fabricated evidence. At best it was on man (Day) and the "authorities" were more than willing to accept it, no questions asked.

Now, can you prove Oswald fired the shots or was that just another one of your false claims?

What an interesting psychological insight into the "logic" of a contrarian.  A must read for anyone who wants to understand how someone can be a closet CTer.  It's like Inspector Clouseau explaining that he suspects everyone and suspects no one.  Very amusing.  I particularly like the part where the logical inconsistency of the FBI's inability to confirm the print with otherwise being accused of being involved in the framing of Oswald is explained away as the product of the FBI being a "massive organization."  HA HA HA.  That level of idiocy doesn't come naturally.  It takes a lot of work to achieve.  Imagine the narrative that Martin from "Europe" entertains behind this fantasy.  He thinks the FBI is involved in framing Oswald for the assassination of the president.  When the most important piece of evidence - the rifle - is sent to them, they examine it but say they found none of Oswald's prints.  The guy they are framing for the crime!  Why?  Well, apparently the FBI is too big an organization for the conspirators within the FBI to manage the review of the single most important piece of evidence in the crime!  HA HA HA.  And on and on it goes with such ad hoc explanations of events that are not only baseless and logically inconsistent but moronic.

[Martin Weidmann]

What an interesting psychological insight into the "logic" of a contrarian.  A must read for anyone who wants to understand how someone can be a closet CTer.  It's like Inspector Clouseau explaining that he suspects everyone and suspects no one.  Very amusing.  I particularly like the part where the logical inconsistency of the FBI's inability to confirm the print with otherwise being accused of being involved in the framing of Oswald is explained away as the product of the FBI being a "massive organization."  HA HA HA.  That level of idiocy doesn't come naturally.  It takes a lot of work to achieve.  Imagine the narrative that Martin from "Europe" entertains behind this fantasy.  He thinks the FBI is involved in framing Oswald for the assassination of the president.  When the most important piece of evidence - the rifle - is sent to them, they examine it but say they found none of Oswald's prints.  The guy they are framing for the crime!  Why?  Well, apparently the FBI is too big an organization for the conspirators within the FBI to manage the review of the single most important piece of evidence in the crime!  HA HA HA.  And on and on it goes with such ad hoc explanations of events that are not only baseless and logically inconsistent but moronic.

Is there anything of relevance in this word salad?

I particularly like the part where the logical inconsistency of the FBI's inability to confirm the print with otherwise being accused of being involved in the framing of Oswald is explained away as the product of the FBI being a "massive organization."  HA HA HA.

What a tragic demonstration of total ignorance. You talk about the FBI as if it is one person and not a massive organization. And it is utterly false to claim that the FBI was unable to "confirm the print" (whatever that means), when in fact the FBI lab found no print on the rifle to begin with. How does one confirm a print that isn't there? Also, no sane person would ever claim that the entire FBI would be involved in framing Oswald. A few individuals at key places perhaps, but the bulk of FBI employees just carried out orders without having a clue what the total picture really was. But that goes way over you head, as per usual, right?

Imagine the narrative that Martin from "Europe" entertains behind this fantasy.  He thinks the FBI is involved in framing Oswald for the assassination of the president. 

That's not my narrative nor do I think that. What it really is, is one of your classic but worthless apagogical arguments.

When the most important piece of evidence - the rifle - is sent to them, they examine it but say they found none of Oswald's prints. The guy they are framing for the crime!  Why?

No, they said they found no prints at all on the rifle. Not Oswald's or those of anybody else. And they said it because it was obviously true and there was no way to say anything else simply because when the rifle was examined Oswald was still alive which means the case would go to court. The matter was of course cleaned up after Oswald's death when they blindly accepted the fairytale told to them by Lt Day! Didn't that evidence card come in handy all of a sudden......

[John Iacoletti]

Imagine the narrative that Martin from "Europe" entertains behind this fantasy.  He thinks the FBI is involved in framing Oswald for the assassination of the president. 

That's not my narrative nor do I think that. What it really is, is one of your classic but worthless apagogical arguments.

Strawman “Smith” strikes again. He’s apparently too ignorant to be embarrassed.