You think Oswald is linked to the rifle only by the "opinion" of the FBI. What does that even mean? LOL. Of course there is a mountain of evidence and circumstances that link Oswald to a specific rifle with a specific serial number. That same rifle is left at the scene of the crime with fired bullet casings from that same rifle found by the window from which several witnesses confirm the shots were fired. Imagine that at the scene of a shooting that a gun is found that can be linked to an individual. That individual has no alibi. That individual instead flees and shoots a police officer and then lies about ownership of the gun. That's a slam dunk of guilt. But we have gone over your insane contrarian standard of proof in the JFK case a million times. The point in this thread is to apply that looney standard to the Lincoln assassination. There is no evidence that links Booth to the gun or the gun to the assassination. Multiple different people claimed to have found the gun after the assassination. No one can prove it was fired that day. LOL. No one saw Booth pull the trigger per your pedantic analysis of what that means. They just heard a gunshot and turned to see Booth pointing a gun at Lincoln's head. Some of the witnesses were off their description of Booth's height, weight, manner of dress. So there must be doubt according to you.
You think Oswald is linked to the rifle only by the "opinion" of the FBI. What does that even mean? LOL. Apparently you enjoy laughing at your own ignorance.
Of course there is a mountain of evidence and circumstances that link Oswald to a specific rifle with a specific serial number.So, you keep saying, but somehow you are never able to present that "mountain of evidence", which is of course understandable as it only exists in your mind.
That same rifle is left at the scene of the crime with fired bullet casings from that same rifle found by the window from which several witnesses confirm the shots were fired.And here is your superficiality on full display. Even if it is the same rifle (something for which you have no credible evidence), this still does not mean that the rifle was fired that day or that the shells were fired on that day. There, again, is no evidence for that. It may well be that witnesses confirm that shots were fired from the 6th floor, but there were also witnesses who said the shots came from elsewhere, and even if those witnesses you rely on are right, that still does not provide evidence that the rifle found at the TSBD was the one that was actually fired. All you are doing is making assumptions that are not supported by the evidence.
Imagine that at the scene of a shooting that a gun is found that can be linked to an individual. That individual has no alibi. That individual instead flees and shoots a police officer and then lies about ownership of the gun. That's a slam dunk of guilt.Bla bla bla.... more assumptions. There is no way to know if Oswald had an alibi or not. We don't know what he actually told Fritz and his ilk and their reports are contradictory. Besides, Oswald was killed within 48 hours after the assassination and never had an opportunity to get any kind of detailed explanation about anything. There is also no evidence that Oswald "fleed" the building and it was never conclusively proven that he killed Tippit. All you are doing is making up stuff that sounds bad for Oswald but is in reality nothing more than hot air. Just like your foolish claim that Oswald lied about owning a gun. That's the most idiotic claim of them all. You first have decided that Oswald did own a gun and that it was the one found at the TSBD and then, when he denies owning a rifle, you claim he lied, when in fact it may well be that he didn't. But your massive bias will never allow you to understand that!
But we have gone over your insane contrarian standard of proof in the JFK case a million times. My "insane contrarian standard of proof" is nothing more than asking you to present the evidence for all the flawed, misleading and untrue claims you have made over the years. Since you don't have any evidence to present that backs up your foolish claims you can only resort to complain about my standard of proof. You sound like Donald Trump and his gang of idiots more and more every day.
The point in this thread is to apply that looney standard to the Lincoln assassination. There is no evidence that links Booth to the gun or the gun to the assassination. Multiple different people claimed to have found the gun after the assassination. No one can prove it was fired that day. LOL. No one saw Booth pull the trigger per your pedantic analysis of what that means. They just heard a gunshot and turned to see Booth pointing a gun at Lincoln's head. Some of the witnesses were off their description of Booth's height, weight, manner of dress. So there must be doubt according to you. Apples and oranges... A walk through strawman alley, if ever I saw one. This kind of idiotic argument only puts your desperation on full display.
