A Topic for LN's: What is a CT?

[John Iacoletti]

Not going to play your game John. I've stated what I believe.

As you wish.  I like to have good reasons before I'll believe something.

[Joe Elliott]

I don't believe anybody did any of these things.

Next question?

If none of the evidence is bogus then Oswald must be guilty. He ordered the rifle and handgun and used the rifle to murder the President and used the handgun to murder Officer Tippit.


Where is the website, or post, that lists what evidence is faked and (hopefully) lists the names, or at least the number of various CIA agents, FBI agents, Dallas police agents, autopsy doctors and other experts who must have been in on the conspiracy. So, I can judge if the CTers really believe in a small conspiracy or an unbelievably large secret conspiracy. The impression they give me is that they believe in a large secret conspiracy. Otherwise they would freely give out such lists.

[John Iacoletti]

If none of the evidence is bogus then Oswald must be guilty. He ordered the rifle and handgun and used the rifle to murder the President and used the handgun to murder Officer Tippit.

That would only follow if the evidence actually showed that Oswald ordered the rifle and handgun and used the rifle to murder the President and used the handgun to murder Officer Tippit.  It doesn't.  At least not by anything approaching a reasonable doubt.  You're confusing conclusions based on the evidence (along with a whole lot of speculation and conjecture) with the evidence itself.

[Joe Elliott]

That would only follow if the evidence actually showed that Oswald ordered the rifle and handgun and used the rifle to murder the President and used the handgun to murder Officer Tippit.  It doesn't.  At least not by anything approaching a reasonable doubt.  You're confusing conclusions based on the evidence (along with a whole lot of speculation and conjecture) with the evidence itself.

How is it this evidence does not prove this?

Because the paper trail is faked? Who faked it? How many people would it take to fake this? Who was in a position to assign the people to produce and insert the fake paper work in the appropriate location, to make it appear that this rifle was ordered by the same ?person? whose fake ID Oswald was found carrying?

Or do you believe that Oswald was not really carrying a fake ID? Even if this is so, officers would be needed to plant the fake ID on him and go along with the story, and other people would be needed to produce the fake paper trail that seems to lead to a P. O. Box associated with this alias.



In any case you seem not the least bit interested in producing a list of the evidence that is most likely faked, and the people needed to fake this evidence. This is one would likely do if they do not want to expose the fact that they believe in a large conspiracy.


You seem to use the cover ?Well, I?m not saying for certain there was a large secret conspiracy, so technically I am not a large secret conspiracy believer? while suggesting that there was.

[Martin Weidmann]

How is it this evidence does not prove this?

Because the paper trail is faked? Who faked it? How many people would it take to fake this? Who was in a position to assign the people to produce and insert the fake paper work in the appropriate location, to make it appear that this rifle was ordered by the same ?person? whose fake ID Oswald was found carrying?

Or do you believe that Oswald was not really carrying a fake ID? Even if this is so, officers would be needed to plant the fake ID on him and go along with the story, and other people would be needed to produce the fake paper trail that seems to lead to a P. O. Box associated with this alias.



In any case you seem not the least bit interested in producing a list of the evidence that is most likely faked, and the people needed to fake this evidence. This is one would likely do if they do not want to expose the fact that they believe in a large conspiracy.


You seem to use the cover ?Well, I?m not saying for certain there was a large secret conspiracy, so technically I am not a large secret conspiracy believer? while suggesting that there was.

Because the paper trail is faked? Who faked it? How many people would it take to fake this? Who was in a position to assign the people to produce and insert the fake paper work in the appropriate location, to make it appear that this rifle was ordered by the same ?person? whose fake ID Oswald was found carrying?

Why would the entire paper trail be faked and why would there be a need to insert fake documents in some location? In case of the rifle all it took to create the entire papertrail was a small order form (with only a few words written on it) and a money order, right?

For the revolver there was even less paperwork.

Or do you believe that Oswald was not really carrying a fake ID? Even if this is so, officers would be needed to plant the fake ID on him and go along with the story, and other people would be needed to produce the fake paper trail that seems to lead to a P. O. Box associated with this alias.

To answer your question first; I don't know if Oswald was carrying a fake ID or not. All I know is that there is no day 1 report from any of the arresting officers, including Paul Bentley who took a wallet from Oswald in the car, that mentions something as significant as a fake ID. Can you give a reasonable explanation for why that is?

[John Mytton]

That would only follow if the evidence actually showed that Oswald ordered the rifle and handgun and used the rifle to murder the President and used the handgun to murder Officer Tippit.  It doesn't.  At least not by anything approaching a reasonable doubt.  You're confusing conclusions based on the evidence (along with a whole lot of speculation and conjecture) with the evidence itself.

At least not by anything approaching a reasonable doubt.

This is where you fail, isn't the criteria "reasonable doubt by a reasonable person" and you have repeatedly shown yourself not to be a reasonable person, therefore in my estimation you would not be picked to be on a jury and thus your repeated use of "reasonable doubt" is simply self serving nonsense!



JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

This is where you fail, isn't the criteria "reasonable doubt by a reasonable person" and you have repeatedly shown yourself not to be a reasonable person, therefore in my estimation you would not be picked to be on a jury and thus your repeated use of "reasonable doubt" is simply self serving nonsense!

JohnM

Anybody can play this stupid game, Johnny

In my estimation you are not a reasonable person, so your opinion can not be considered anything else but nonsense.

[John Mytton]

Anybody can play this stupid game, Johnny

In my estimation you are not a reasonable person, so your opinion can not be considered anything else but nonsense.

Huh? You're attempting to make a comparison where none exists, the evidence is solid and tangible and my influence of being reasonable has absolutely no impact on this Mountain of Evidence but on the other hand people like you and Iacoletti continually attempt to dispute virtually every piece of evidence and this blatant illogical paranoia can only be seen as "unreasonable" which makes my original point even more valid.



JohnM