One of the most important books in this case is free and online!

[Richard Smith]

There is no doubt.

Really? If that is true, why can't you answer most, if not all, the questions you've been asked in the past?


"The evidence that Oswald came down the stairs after the last shot is.... that it happened - "Richard Smith"   

That's the example?  Wow.  If a thing has happened, then there is no need for proof that it happened to reach a conclusion.  Much less having to convince a kook.  Unreal.  Let's say I hit a golf ball and you and I stand and see the ball resting at an exact spot.  You argue that the evidence is lacking that the ball landed there.  That to prove it, I have to demonstrate to your subjective satisfaction using an impossible standard of proof the velocity that I hit the ball, the wind direction, the rate at which a golf ball rolls and also disprove to your satisfaction various other alternative factors that COULD preclude us from reaching the conclusion that the ball came to rest on the spot where we can see it with our own eyes.  None of that is necessary when it has actually happened.  That is rabbit hole lunacy.  There is no better evidence that something occurred than it occurring.  If someone wins the lottery, would you argue that the odds are so great of it happening that they didn't win.  Stupidity. 

We know from the evidence that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 and we know that he was seen by Baker and Truly in the 2nd floor lunchroom.  That means he MUST have gone down the stairs because that is the ONLY means for him to have done so in the known timeframe.  We know he did so without being seen.  Thus, your idiotic analysis of witness movements in an attempt to preclude reaching this conclusion is laughable.  No one has to prove anythign to your idiotic satisfaction.  It happened.  Therefore, we know with certainty that it could happen. 

[Martin Weidmann]

That's the example?  Wow.  If a thing has happened, then there is no need for proof that it happened to reach a conclusion.  Much less having to convince a kook.  Unreal.  Let's say I hit a golf ball and you and I stand and see the ball resting at an exact spot.  You argue that the evidence is lacking that the ball landed there.  That to prove it, I have to demonstrate to your subjective satisfaction using an impossible standard of proof the velocity that I hit the ball, the wind direction, the rate at which a golf ball rolls and also disprove to your satisfaction various other alternative factors that COULD preclude us from reaching the conclusion that the ball came to rest on the spot where we can see it with our own eyes.  None of that is necessary when it has actually happened.  That is rabbit hole lunacy.  There is no better evidence that something occurred than it occurring.  If someone wins the lottery, would you argue that the odds are so great of it happening that they didn't win.  Stupidity. 

We know from the evidence that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 and we know that he was seen by Baker and Truly in the 2nd floor lunchroom.  That means he MUST have gone down the stairs because that is the ONLY means for him to have done so in the known timeframe.  We know he did so without being seen.  Thus, your idiotic analysis of witness movements in an attempt to preclude reaching this conclusion is laughable.  No one has to prove anythign to your idiotic satisfaction.  It happened.  Therefore, we know with certainty that it could happen.

If a thing has happened, then there is no need for proof that it happened to reach a conclusion.

Really? And how do you know something happened, when you have no evidence that it did happen?

We know from the evidence that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30

No we don't know that. For the biggest part of last year you were asked for the evidence that puts Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 and you could never produce it. Stop confusing what you believe with actual evidence.

and we know that he was seen by Baker and Truly in the 2nd floor lunchroom.

True

That means he MUST have gone down the stairs because that is the ONLY means for him to have done so in the known timeframe.

No, that only MUST be true if you can first show that Oswald was indeed on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. And that's something you simply can not do.

and that, in turn, makes this comment

"The evidence that Oswald came down the stairs after the last shot is.... that it happened - "Richard Smith"   

a particularly stupid one!

[Martin Weidmann]

There was no obligation for the federal government to investigate this case.  The DPD was satisfied of Oswald's guilt based upon the evidence that had been obtained.  If the highest levels of the US government were involved in the assassination, framing of Oswald, and cover up, then the very last thing they would have done is to initiate a voluntary investigation into the matter.  That would be absurd.  The WC did an outstanding job.  If CTer loons want to believe that they didn't keep an open mind and had a preconceived conclusion, maybe they should blame Oswald for leaving so much evidence of his guilt.  If the WC was biased toward Oswald, it was because the evidence demonstrates that he was stone cold guilty of this crime.  There is no doubt.

There was no obligation for the federal government to investigate this case.  The DPD was satisfied of Oswald's guilt based upon the evidence that had been obtained.

And Hoover was convinced as well. So, all they now needed to do was to convince the American people. Hence, the Katzenbach memo.

If the highest levels of the US government were involved in the assassination, framing of Oswald, and cover up, then the very last thing they would have done is to initiate a voluntary investigation into the matter.

The explanation for the "investigation" is clearly set out in the Katzenbach memo. And, if the highest lever of the Goverment were involved, they could steer the secret investigation in any direction they wanted, right? So, nothing to lose, everything to gain....

The WC did an outstanding job.

And still they only convinced a minority of the population. Go figure...

[Richard Smith]

If a thing has happened, then there is no need for proof that it happened to reach a conclusion.

Really? And how do you know something happened, when you have no evidence that it did happen?

We know from the evidence that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30

No we don't know that. For the biggest part of last year you were asked for the evidence that puts Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 and you could never produce it. Stop confusing what you believe with actual evidence.

and we know that he was seen by Baker and Truly in the 2nd floor lunchroom.

True

That means he MUST have gone down the stairs because that is the ONLY means for him to have done so in the known timeframe.

No, that only MUST be true if you can first show that Oswald was indeed on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. And that's something you simply can not do.

and that, in turn, makes this comment

"The evidence that Oswald came down the stairs after the last shot is.... that it happened - "Richard Smith"   

a particularly stupid one!

Whew.  Unreal.  You know the evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30. It is conclusive unless you require a time machine.  The shots were fired at 12:30. Oswald's prints are on the SN boxes.  Bullet casings from Oswald's rifle are found by the window from which the shots were fired.  Oswald's rifle is found on that floor.  A long bag with Oswald's prints was found next to the SN.  Oswald carried a long bag to work that morning that can't be accounted for in any other way.  Oswald had no credible alibi for the moment of the shooting.  Your counterargument to this mountain of evidence apparently is that there is no time machine to confirm the obvious conclusion to be drawn from the evidence.  You imply that all this evidence which derives from numerous sources was potentially all the product of some type of frame up of Oswald.  You provide zero credible evidence of this.  Just that the possibility exists because no one has access to a time machine to disprove the possibility of fabrication to your subjective satisfaction.  And an on and on and on.  Lunacy.   

How about this?  If Oswald was in fact on the 6th floor at 12:30, do you agree that means he took the stairs unnoticed to the 2nd floor?  In other words, that was the only way he gets there within the known timeframe.  And your idiotic analysis of witness accounts does not preclude him from doing so IF he was on the 6th floor at 12:30? I'm not asking you to agree that he was on the 6th floor at 12:30. Only that my analysis is correct as a point of logic (i.e. if Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 that proves beyond any doubt that he made his way down the stairs to the 2nd floor lunchroom unnoticed).  It proves the premise without having to rebut any of your idiotic claims.

[John Mytton]

Maybe and this is just 1 example, perhaps Richard is first waiting for you to substantiate your belief that Oswald's rifle(LOL) was not Oswald's rifle(LOL)??

Classic LN BS, wanting somebody to prove a negative.

Kleins microfilm records which were verified by Waldman, show that A J Hidell sent an envelope and coupon wanting an Italian Carcano

Yes, that's what the photocopies of the microfilm (that's now lost) show.

Kleins sent C2766 to Oswald's PO box

There is no evidence for this. Waldmann claimed that the letters "PP" on one of the documents mean it had been sent but that's hardly conclusive

Shortly thereafter Oswald was photographed with the exact type and size of Italian Carcano that matched the Italian Carcano in the Backyard photo

Of course, if he was photographed with a particular rifle, that same rifle would actually show up in the photograph...   

Do the photograph(s) prove anything beyond Oswald was holding that rifle when the photo was taken? Nope.... they don't

and which later the HSCA confirmed the rifle were the exact same because of you know "moon craters" etc.

Photocopies and "moon craters".... and that's part of the "mountain of evidence"? Really?   

Why was the blanket which contained Oswald rifle(LOL) was empty when searched on the afternoon of the 22nd?

Easy. Because there was nothing in it. And since nobody paid any attention to that blanket since late September '63, it could have been empty for quite a while.

Why an Italian Carcano with the serial number C2766 was found on the 6th floor of Oswald's work?

Because somebody left it there

Why Oswald's rifle(LOL) had attached the 3 same types of thread which made up the shirt which Oswald was arrested in, the prohibitive probability is that they came from the same source.

That's actually a good question, as it was never established that Oswald, that morning, was wearing the shirt he was arrested in.

Why Oswald's rifle(LOL) had his palmprint as confirmed by Lt Day and later verified by the FBI that the print came from Oswald's rifle(LOL) meaning that Oswald himself touched the rifle


Oswald's palmprint didn't show up until about a week after the murder when Lt Day produced an evidence card with that print on in. The FBI examined the rifle during the night after the murder and could not even find a trace of a print or any evidence that a print had been lifted.

Why Oswald told his interrogators a different story than what Oswald told Frazier about the contents of his long brown package.

Did he?

in detail can you explain how and who co-ordinated this massive charade which involved multiple unconnected participants?

LOL Do you want their addresses and social security numbers as ?

Here's an idea, why don't you connect the points you have raised without merely making highly speculative leaps of faith and provide the evidence that connect the dots as well?

I know it's a public Forum but I specifically asked John to respond and it would have been decent of you to let him go first but I do understand your uncontrollable  obsession.

Anyway let's see how YOU answered.

Either C2766 was ordered by Oswald and Kleins sent the rifle to Oswald which ended up on the 6th floor of where Oswald worked, or step by step you allude to;

1. Faked evidence
2. Faked evidence and Waldmann lied
3. Conspirators had Oswald pose with the murder weapon 8 months previous, that's some plan.
4. More fakery and lying experts.
5. A rifle that was in the blanket somehow disappeared?
6. More unseen, unknown conspirators.
7. Conspirators at some point obtained Oswald's shirt and transferred fibres.
8. Lying Police and Lying FBI Experts.
9a. Lying agents
9b. Lying Postal Inspector
9c. Lying Police

Here's an idea, why don't you connect the points you have raised without merely making highly speculative leaps of faith and provide the evidence that connect the dots as well?

The connected dots do indeed lead straight to Oswald whereas out of whole cloth you've invented a narrative which involves a stack of unproven fakery, unseen unknown Conspirators and lies from a multitude of unconnected witnesses?

Thanks for at least trying!

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Whew.  Unreal.  You know the evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30. It is conclusive unless you require a time machine.  The shots were fired at 12:30. Oswald's prints are on the SN boxes.  Bullet casings from Oswald's rifle are found by the window from which the shots were fired.  Oswald's rifle is found on that floor.  A long bag with Oswald's prints was found next to the SN.  Oswald carried a long bag to work that morning that can't be accounted for in any other way.  Oswald had no credible alibi for the moment of the shooting.  Your counterargument to this mountain of evidence apparently is that there is no time machine to confirm the obvious conclusion to be drawn from the evidence.  You imply that all this evidence which derives from numerous sources was potentially all the product of some type of frame up of Oswald.  You provide zero credible evidence of this.  Just that the possibility exists because no one has access to a time machine to disprove the possibility of fabrication to your subjective satisfaction.  And an on and on and on.  Lunacy.   

How about this?  If Oswald was in fact on the 6th floor at 12:30, do you agree that means he took the stairs unnoticed to the 2nd floor?  In other words, that was the only way he gets there within the known timeframe.  And your idiotic analysis of witness accounts does not preclude him from doing so IF he was on the 6th floor at 12:30? I'm not asking you to agree that he was on the 6th floor at 12:30. Only that my analysis is correct as a point of logic (i.e. if Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 that proves beyond any doubt that he made his way down the stairs to the 2nd floor lunchroom unnoticed).  It proves the premise without having to rebut any of your idiotic claims.

You know the evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30.

No I don't, because there isn't any. You can regurgitate all your speculation and assumptions as much as you want, it still amounts to anything conclusive.

The shots were fired at 12:30. Oswald's prints are on the SN boxes.  Bullet casings from Oswald's rifle are found by the window from which the shots were fired.  Oswald's rifle is found on that floor.  A long bag with Oswald's prints was found next to the SN.  Oswald carried a long bag to work that morning that can't be accounted for in any other way.  Oswald had no credible alibi for the moment of the shooting.  Your counterargument to this mountain of evidence apparently is that there is no time machine to confirm the obvious conclusion to be drawn from the evidence.

So, you admit that you base your entire "Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30" argument upon flawed and questionable circumstantial evidence combined with speculation. Oswald worked at the TSBD and his job involved moving boxes, making the fingerprint claim worthless. And you can call it "Oswald's rifle" as much as you like, but that's also an assumption for which you have no evidence. But even if it was indeed his rifle, that still doesn't prove that he was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired.

You imply that all this evidence which derives from numerous sources was potentially all the product of some type of frame up of Oswald. 

I imply no such thing. What you seem unable to understand is that I don't know what really happened. I hear stories, theories, claims etc but at the end of the day I'm playing devil's advocate to obtain the information I need to reach a conclusion. I'm not claiming there was a conspiracy, nor do I claim Oswald is guilty or innocent and framed. I wasn't there, so I don't know. What stands out for me is that somebody like you, who is convinced that Oswald is guilty, should be able to provide the conclusive evidence of that guilty, but every time I ask a question I get evasion and highly speculative arguments that are nowhere near conclusive.

You provide zero credible evidence of this.

Don't have to. You claimed Oswald came down the stairs after the last shot, so it's up to you to prove that the was on the 6th floor to begin with and did come down the stairs. You can't do either!

How about this?  If Oswald was in fact on the 6th floor at 12:30, do you agree that means he took the stairs unnoticed to the 2nd floor?  In other words, that was the only way he gets there within the known timeframe.

Not sure about "unnoticed" but, yes, that seems the most likely scenario. If he was on the 6th floor, the stairs would probably have been his only way down to the 2nd floor within the timeframe.

And your idiotic analysis of witness accounts does not preclude him from doing so IF he was on the 6th floor at 12:30?

There is noting idiotic about it, so no! There isn't a great deal of space in the TSBD. The wooden stairs were extremely noisy and somebody running down the stairs would have made a lot of noise. There is, in my mind, no way that Dorothy Garner could have missed him, if he came down the stairs.

I'm not asking you to agree that he was on the 6th floor at 12:30. Only that my analysis is correct as a point of logic (i.e. if Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 that proves beyond any doubt that he made his way down the stairs to the 2nd floor lunchroom unnoticed).

Your "analysis" is perhaps obvious at a superficial level but as a point of logic it certainly doesn't prove anything beyond any doubt. And, no I don't need your childish time machine.

[Martin Weidmann]

I know it's a public Forum but I specifically asked John to respond and it would have been decent of you to let him go first but I do understand your uncontrollable  obsession.

Anyway let's see how YOU answered.

Either C2766 was ordered by Oswald and Kleins sent the rifle to Oswald which ended up on the 6th floor of where Oswald worked, or step by step you allude to;

1. Faked evidence
2. Faked evidence and Waldmann lied
3. Conspirators had Oswald pose with the murder weapon 8 months previous, that's some plan.
4. More fakery and lying experts.
5. A rifle that was in the blanket somehow disappeared?
6. More unseen, unknown conspirators.
7. Conspirators at some point obtained Oswald's shirt and transferred fibres.
8. Lying Police and Lying FBI Experts.
9a. Lying agents
9b. Lying Postal Inspector
9c. Lying Police

The connected dots do indeed lead straight to Oswald whereas out of whole cloth you've invented a narrative which involves a stack of unproven fakery, unseen unknown Conspirators and lies from a multitude of unconnected witnesses?

Thanks for at least trying!

JohnM

I know it's a public Forum but I specifically asked John to respond and it would have been decent of you to let him go first  

Now, why don't I care?

Either C2766 was ordered by Oswald and Kleins sent the rifle to Oswald which ended up on the 6th floor of where Oswald worked, or step by step you allude to;

1. Faked evidence

Kleins microfilm records which were verified by Waldman, show that A J Hidell sent an envelope and coupon wanting an Italian Carcano

Yes, that's what the photocopies of the microfilm (that's now lost) show.

Where did I mention "faked evidence"


2. Faked evidence and Waldmann lied"

Kleins sent C2766 to Oswald's PO box

There is no evidence for this. Waldmann claimed that the letters "PP" on one of the documents mean it had been sent but that's hardly conclusive

Where did I say that evidence was faked and Waldmann lied?


3. Conspirators had Oswald pose with the murder weapon 8 months previous, that's some plan.

Shortly thereafter Oswald was photographed with the exact type and size of Italian Carcano that matched the Italian Carcano in the Backyard photo

Of course, if he was photographed with a particular rifle, that same rifle would actually show up in the photograph...   

Do the photograph(s) prove anything beyond Oswald was holding that rifle when the photo was taken? Nope.... they don't

Setting up somebody can take a long time. That you seem to think it can be done in a couple of days only tells me that you are clueless about what goes on in the real world.

4. More fakery and lying experts.

and which later the HSCA confirmed the rifle were the exact same because of you know "moon craters" etc.

Photocopies and "moon craters".... and that's part of the "mountain of evidence"? Really?   

I wasn't aware there were experts on "moon craters" on rifle? And what did they lie about?

5. A rifle that was in the blanket somehow disappeared?

Why was the blanket which contained Oswald rifle(LOL) was empty when searched on the afternoon of the 22nd?

Easy. Because there was nothing in it. And since nobody paid any attention to that blanket since late September '63, it could have been empty for quite a while.

Are you sure there was a rifle in that blanket to begin with? And do you believe that nobody but Oswald had access to that alleged rifle?

6. More unseen, unknown conspirators.

Why an Italian Carcano with the serial number C2766 was found on the 6th floor of Oswald's work?

Because somebody left it there

So it was a conspirator who left the rifle there? Is that what you are saying?

7. Conspirators at some point obtained Oswald's shirt and transferred fibres.

Why Oswald's rifle(LOL) had attached the 3 same types of thread which made up the shirt which Oswald was arrested in, the prohibitive probability is that they came from the same source.

That's actually a good question, as it was never established that Oswald, that morning, was wearing the shirt he was arrested in.

If Oswald did change his shirt, can you come up with any logical and plausible argument how fibers from his shirt got on the rifle?

8. Lying Police and Lying FBI Experts.

Why Oswald's rifle(LOL) had his palmprint as confirmed by Lt Day and later verified by the FBI that the print came from Oswald's rifle(LOL) meaning that Oswald himself touched the rifle


Oswald's palmprint didn't show up until about a week after the murder when Lt Day produced an evidence card with that print on in. The FBI examined the rifle during the night after the murder and could not even find a trace of a print or any evidence that a print had been lifted.

There is no doubt that Lt Day lied, as the WC deleted part of his testimony. I'm not sure which FBI experts are lying, according to you. Are they the folks who examined the rifle within 24 hours after the shooting and found no print or evidence of a print having been lifted, or the ones you claim verified the print later on.

9a. Lying agents
9b. Lying Postal Inspector
9c. Lying Police

Why Oswald told his interrogators a different story than what Oswald told Frazier about the contents of his long brown package.

Did he?

No verbatim recording of what the suspect in the killing of a President said, reports written days later, from memory, sometimes contradicting eachother.

Dallas PD in the early 60's was one of the most corrupt departments, as is demonstrated by the innocence project, yet for a shallow superficial invidual like you they are all truth tellers and can't do anything wrong. Never mind they were caught out in a plethora of evidence manipulation.

The connected dots do indeed lead straight to Oswald whereas out of whole cloth you've invented a narrative which involves a stack of unproven fakery, unseen unknown Conspirators and lies from a multitude of unconnected witnesses?

This only tells me that you are clueless when it comes to connecting dots.

[John Mytton]

This only tells me that you are clueless when it comes to connecting dots.

You clearly don't understand the concept of connecting dots, 1 leads to 2 which leads to 3 and so on till you reach a logical conclusion whereas you have a jumbled mess of unproven facts which leads nowhere. Hahaha!



JohnM