Buell Wesley Frazier

[Michael Capasse]

The CTer/contrarian struggle with logic is painful to behold.  Here is an example.  If Oswald is placed beyond doubt at point A and then sometime later at point B there is no reason to engage in endless pedantic nitpicking to claim he couldn't have made it to point B within the known timeframe.  CTer/contrarians refuse to accept this simple concept.  They cling to pedantic, subjective interpretations of any witness testimony or circumstance that casts any doubt on this conclusion.  Again, the best proof that a thing could happen is that it DID happen.  There is no better proof.  If person X is proven beyond doubt to be in Paris on one day and in NYC on the next, there is no need to know which plane he took, who he sat next to on the plane, or his manner of dress to reach the conclusion that he made it to NYC from Paris in that timeframe.  Just because a witness might describe this person as wearing a different colored jacket than the person in NYC is rabbit hole nonsense if the totality of evidence places him there beyond all doubt.

  I'm trying to follow along on this one.
Does that mean LMR saw a rifle?

Too funny.

[Jack Nessan]

No.  As Pat Speer brilliantly illustrated, the palmprint was near the middle of the bag, and the fingerprint was near the bottom of the bag.

https://www.patspeer.com/jahs-chapter-18

No.  As Pat Speer brilliantly illustrated, the palmprint was near the middle of the bag, and the fingerprint was near the bottom of the bag.

?  I read it that Pat proves what Linnie stated was correct about how LHO gripped the rifle near the top of the bag.

Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.

The bottom he carried it this way.... and it almost touched the ground.

[Martin Weidmann]

The CTer/contrarian struggle with logic is painful to behold.  Here is an example.  If Oswald is placed beyond doubt at point A and then sometime later at point B there is no reason to engage in endless pedantic nitpicking to claim he couldn't have made it to point B within the known timeframe.  CTer/contrarians refuse to accept this simple concept.  They cling to pedantic, subjective interpretations of any witness testimony or circumstance that casts any doubt on this conclusion.  Again, the best proof that a thing could happen is that it DID happen.  There is no better proof.  If person X is proven beyond doubt to be in Paris on one day and in NYC on the next, there is no need to know which plane he took, who he sat next to on the plane, or his manner of dress to reach the conclusion that he made it to NYC from Paris in that timeframe.  Just because a witness might describe this person as wearing a different colored jacket than the person in NYC is rabbit hole nonsense if the totality of evidence places him there beyond all doubt.

Classic LN dishonesty at it's finest. The Paris/NYC analogy is simply pathetic!

Oswald was not "placed beyond doubt at point A". Some time ago I've spend months waiting for you to provide a shred of evidence that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. Not only couldn't you provide such evidence, but you finally threw a tantrum and ran away from the conversation.

Not even the WC could place Oswald on the 6th floor at 12.30. They just assumed he was there and you are doing the same!

[Richard Smith]

I'm trying to follow along on this one.
Does that mean LMR saw a rifle?

Too funny.

Funny?  Yes, but not for the reason you think.  This is like describing color to someone who is color blind.  They find it difficult to "follow along."  The classic CTer inability to see the forest for all the trees. 

[Tom Sorensen]

It's when the airline timetable shows that X couldn't have made it to NYC in time to be seen the LN tosspot evidence falls apart and their hissy fits begin. Like when Oswald "escaped" from the Plaza by bus, by cab or whatever... ROFL.

[Dan O'meara]

The CTer/contrarian struggle with logic is painful to behold.  Here is an example.  If Oswald is placed beyond doubt at point A and then sometime later at point B there is no reason to engage in endless pedantic nitpicking to claim he couldn't have made it to point B within the known timeframe.  CTer/contrarians refuse to accept this simple concept.  They cling to pedantic, subjective interpretations of any witness testimony or circumstance that casts any doubt on this conclusion.  Again, the best proof that a thing could happen is that it DID happen.  There is no better proof.  If person X is proven beyond doubt to be in Paris on one day and in NYC on the next, there is no need to know which plane he took, who he sat next to on the plane, or his manner of dress to reach the conclusion that he made it to NYC from Paris in that timeframe.  Just because a witness might describe this person as wearing a different colored jacket than the person in NYC is rabbit hole nonsense if the totality of evidence places him there beyond all doubt.

Again, the best proof that a thing could happen is that it DID happen.

 
Tricky Dicky's Patented Nutter Logic.

Example #1

1] The best proof that a thing could happen is that it DID happen.
2] Oswald shot JFK.
3] That is proof that it DID happen.

Example#2

1] The best proof that a thing could happen is that it DID happen.
2] Oswald made it down from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor in time to be confronted by Baker.
3] That is proof that it DID happen.