BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963

[John Iacoletti]

You're placing your trust on the least precise piece of BWF testimony.

Really?  One end in his armpit and the other end in his cupped hand is pretty damn precise.

[John Iacoletti]

It's not a belief. You're confusing me with CTer MO. The circumstantial evidence that LHO brought C2766 inside CE-142 is so convincing that it passes the beyond all doubt test.

I'm starting to understand your standards.   Pure conjecture is "convincing circumstantial evidence" when you do it and doesn't have any burden of proof.  How convenient.

[Oscar Navarro]

And yet, you're apparently convinced by the equally wacky Brennan, Markham, Bledsoe, and Roberts.

Be honest, you are convinced by whoever supports your narrative.

Nah! Brennan, Markham and Bledsoe are all eyewitnesses and provided valuable evidence in their testimony. Earlene Roberts can be counted on to have witnessed LHO  arrive at the rooming house and give valuable information as to his demeanor and to what he was wearing when he left the rooming house. The part about the police car honking twice came much later and Hugh Aynesworth can testify to the evolution of that story. Dougherty was all over the place during his testimony and there's the Truly and Dougherty dad's comment that he wasn't emotionally equipped to give a coherent account.

[Alan Ford]

I don't use theory but facts. You, on the other hand, use your interpretation (not what he actually testified to) of what BWR testified  to present a counter-factual theory, in fact, it shouldn't even be called a theory. A much better word that explains what you're doing is to use conjecture. That is evident by your belief that Oswald had curtain rods in the bag. On top of that the burden of proof that Oswald had curtain rods in the bag is placed on me! Talk about having your cake and eating it too. The burden of proof is on you.

So your (second-hand) conjecture is better than mine? That's really all you've got? 

OK, Mr I-Don't-Use-Theory-But-Facts, let's see what you're really made of, shall we?

Let's take a fact:



How does your conjecture account for the fact that two curtain rods were submitted to Lieutenant J. C. Day for fingerprinting on 15 March 1964?

And how does your conjecture account for the fact that the rods were specifically tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints?

Over to you! 

[Bill Chapman]

Now!

A cogent objection might be made to the theory I am putting forward:

How did those framing Mr Oswald know for sure in advance that he would make an untypical visit to the Paine home the night before the assassination?

The simple answer is:

They didn't!

And that's where this gets really interesting...

 

 

Somebody framed Oswald... ?

And that's where this gets really interesting...
>>> No it doesn't

[Alan Ford]

Somebody framed Oswald... ?

Another piece of sophisticated dialectic courtesy of the Lone Nut brains trust! 

Anyone else?

[Bill Chapman]

Another piece of sophisticated dialectic courtesy of the Lone Nut brains trust! 

Anyone else?

Goofball

[Alan Ford]

Goofball

Do let us know when you feel brave enough to debate the issue at hand, Mr Chapman!