While you are rambling away, why not clear up John I.'s claim that you did not post on the "Richard Smith" thread? Wouldn't an intellectually honest person want to do that? This one is simple Here is an example. If you argue as John does that the evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle is not convincing and does not prove that he owned that rifle, then what other explanation can there be for that evidence (documents, testimony, photos etc) that links Oswald to that rifle other than it was faked to frame Oswald for the crime? There are documents that confirm a rifle with a specific serial number was sent to his PO Box. Because much of that evidence predated the assassination and comes from a variety of sources, it is genuine or the product of a conspiracy to frame Oswald. There is no third option in which this evidence somehow exists but neither Oswald nor a conspirator is responsible for it. I understand why John takes this dishonest and lazy approach. If he confirmed that he was suggesting a conspiracy, then he might have to do something other than be a contrarian. He might actually have to provide some support or at least a narrative that makes sense. Easier to shrug away everything as suspect without making any attempt to explain an alternative.
If you argue as John does that the evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle is not convincing and does not prove that he owned that rifle, then what other explanation can there be for that evidence (documents, testimony, photos etc) that links Oswald to that rifle other than it was faked to frame Oswald for the crime?
You really are not getting any of this, aren't you now? I don't think John has ever argued that the Klein's documents (which were created as part of a transaction initiated by a handwritten order form) are fake. It seems to me that he only questions the photo copy of the order form and the conclusion of the FBI that it is Oswald's handwriting on that form.
I could be mistaken, but I think John has also never claimed that the BY photos are faked. Personally, I think they are likely authentic. So, regardless of your constant exaggerations, what you really only have is a photo copy of an order form and some photographs and neither of those prove Oswald's ownership of the MC rifle allegedly used to kill Kennedy.
Because much of that evidence predated the assassination and comes from a variety of sources, it is genuine or the product of a conspiracy to frame Oswald. True, but that does not automatically mean that the evidence was faked. Authentic evidence can also be misrepresented.
I understand why John takes this dishonest and lazy approach. If he confirmed that he was suggesting a conspiracy, then he might have to do something other than be a contrarian. He might actually have to provide some support or at least a narrative that makes sense. Easier to shrug away everything as suspect without making any attempt to explain an alternative.
John is not dishonest or lazy in his approach. It seems to me he simply feels that the evidence against Oswald does not support the conclusions attached to it by the WC and/or LNs and on the other hand he feels there is not enough evidence to make a claim that there has been a conspiracy.
Actually, the lazy one is you. Instead of answering my questions, you just ignore the content of my post and basically simply repeat again what you wrote in the post I replied to with my questions.
