Non problematic evidence?

[Martin Weidmann]

I have no desire to ?play games? here? I have better things to do with my time. If you can honestly say to yourself that you have given both sides of the controversy a fair consideration with an open mind, I respect your opinion. Even though I might not agree with your opinion. Only you know for sure whether you have. No matter what you might say to others.

The preponderance of the evidence is overwhelmingly convincing. People have tried to discredit the evidence and I believe that I give their opinions a fair, open-minded consideration. If you believe that you have and have a different opinion, then I respect that. That is my position.

I have no desire to ?play games? here?

Amazing! You make this claim and then instantly proceed to show it's bogus by playing the same game again.

You use a lot of words to say nothing at all.

[Martin Weidmann]

Oswald himself.

In other words, there is no single piece of physical evidence, conclusively tied to Oswald, which is of such significance that it beyond reasonable doubt clearly points to his guilt?

Is that what you are saying?

Never ignore the highest-paid trolls

Bill Chapman
Hunter of Trolls

I see you're back to projecting again...

[John Iacoletti]

The preponderance of the evidence is overwhelmingly convincing.

So you keep claiming, while ?open-mindedly? refusing to examine any of this evidence.

[Charles Collins]

So you keep claiming, while ?open-mindedly? refusing to examine any of this evidence.

I have already examined the evidence. What is so difficult to understand about that statement?

[Bill Chapman]

In other words, there is no single piece of physical evidence, conclusively tied to Oswald, which is of such significance that it beyond reasonable doubt clearly points to his guilt?

Is that what you are saying?

I see you're back to projecting again...

Oswald embodies the entirety of the evidence.
Oswald himself is the evidence.
All packaged up..
 

Bill Chapman
Hunter of Trolls

[Martin Weidmann]

I have already examined the evidence. What is so difficult to understand about that statement?

I have already examined the evidence.

You just don't want to discuss it, right?

I wonder what you are afraid of?

Don't you want to discuss it for fear of possibly finding out that your conclusion(s) were wrong or don't you want to discuss it because you arrogantly feel that your conclusions are always the right ones, or perhaps both?

[John Iacoletti]

I have already examined the evidence. What is so difficult to understand about that statement?

That?s one theory. Another would be that you can?t actually justify your state of convincedness with anything besides an appeal to authority.

[Charles Collins]

That?s one theory. Another would be that you can?t actually justify your state of convincedness with anything besides an appeal to authority.

I have examined the evidence from several points of view. First several CT viewpoints , then the official report, several LN viewpoints,  my own research, viewpoints of forum discussion, etc

Your theory has no evidence to support it.