The preponderance of the evidence

[Paul May]

Have you read either?

Yes. Reading the WC report got me interested in this case, because it didn't make sense......

Circumstantial cases are the weakest kind. They rely on assumptions which may or may not be correct. You claim there is a preponderance of evidence which confirms Oswald was the killer of JFK, when in truth there really is only a rifle which can only be tied tentatively to Oswald by a photo-copy of a handwritten order form and money order (taken from a now lost microfilm) and a handwritten serial number on a Klein's document. Everything else is basically assumption. I find that rather unconvincing.

WRONG. Totally ignorant to case law. Circumstantial case evidence is stronger than a direct evidence case because it contains no bias.  It relies on science, medicine and ballistic evidence typically. You simply make crap up seeking confirmation bias.  So typical.  So embarrassing.

[Jack Trojan]

The HSCA stated a probable conspiracy which they could not prove.  Their statement. They agreed Oswald was the shooter. A few token shots??? If you have hard, credible evidence of another shooter, I?m all ears.  Post it.

There is more evidence that Oswald was not the shooter than there is evidence that he was. And even if he was the shooter why does he have to be a lone nut? Because you say so? HA!

List all the evidence proving why it is a FACT that Oswald was a lone nut shooter. Good luck.

[Martin Weidmann]

WRONG. Totally ignorant to case law. Circumstantial case evidence is stronger than a direct evidence case because it contains no bias.  It relies on science, medicine and ballistic evidence typically. You simply make crap up seeking confirmation bias.  So typical.  So embarrassing.

First of all, who is talking about case law?

Secondly, circumstantial evidence shouldn't contain bias.... the problem is that the WC version is a prosecutorial case which by nature is biased. Look for a particular result and a circumstantial case will get you there.

It relies on science, medicine and ballistic evidence typically.

Okay, I'll bite... what science, medicine and ballistic evidence ties Oswald to the rifle found at the TSBD?

[Paul May]

First of all, who is talking about case law?

Secondly, circumstantial evidence shouldn't contain bias.... the problem is that the WC version is a prosecutorial case which by nature is biased. Look for a particular result and a circumstantial case will get you there.

It relies on science, medicine and ballistic evidence typically.

Okay, I'll bite... what science, medicine and ballistic evidence ties Oswald to the rifle found at the TSBD?

Alas, you?ve not read the WR or the HSCA final report. I won?t be drawn into the same effen debate as in the past 56 years.  How many times must YOU PEOPLE be told something?  You need to be relevant here?  Support your argument with EVIDENCE of conspiracy. Disagreeing with the official findings caries that burden of responsibility.  You can?t even prove an alternative to the SBT. 56 years and your side has nothing.  YOU personally do not know anything about this case outside of all the conspiracy crap you eat up. Good luck with that.

[Martin Weidmann]

Alas, you?ve not read the WR or the HSCA final report. I won?t be drawn into the same effen debate as in the past 56 years.  How many times must YOU PEOPLE be told something?  You need to be relevant here?  Support your argument with EVIDENCE of conspiracy. Disagreeing with the official findings caries that burden of responsibility.  You can?t even prove an alternative to the SBT. 56 years and your side has nothing.  YOU personally do not know anything about this case outside of all the conspiracy crap you eat up. Good luck with that.

Alas, you?ve not read the WR or the HSCA final report. I won?t be drawn into the same effen debate as in the past 56 years.

Coward

How many times must YOU PEOPLE be told something?

"told".. you must be joking?. Shown, that's a different matter, but it seems you come up short in that department


You need to be relevant here?  Support your argument with EVIDENCE of conspiracy

Here we go... Paulie is upset. Rather that argue his case, he goes back to the default "Oswald did it alone unless you can prove a conspiracy" crap. Pathetic!

Disagreeing with the official findings caries that burden of responsibility.

No it doesn't! Sorry to burst your bubble, but it isn't automatically so that what the Government tells you is the truth unless you can prove them wrong. I know this crushes your little world, but there have been enough examples by now of the Government lying to the people and the only ones who don't see that are zealots like you!

You can?t even prove an alternative to the SBT.

No need? you can't even prove the SBT in the first place. It's all theory?..

56 years and your side has nothing.

So, now it's "us against them"? Pathetic?. there is no "your side"... I asked you to show me and you failed. That's all there is!

YOU personally do not know anything about this case outside of all the conspiracy crap you eat up. Good luck with that.

And finally an ad hominem attack on the level of a 12 year old... the weakest form of defense?. Paulie thinks he knows it all but just can't defend or explain it...

[Paul May]

Alas, you?ve not read the WR or the HSCA final report. I won?t be drawn into the same effen debate as in the past 56 years.

Coward

How many times must YOU PEOPLE be told something?

"told".. you must be joking?. Shown, that's a different matter, but it seems you come up short in that department


You need to be relevant here?  Support your argument with EVIDENCE of conspiracy

Here we go... Paulie is upset. Rather that argue his case, he goes back to the default "Oswald did it alone unless you can prove a conspiracy" crap. Pathetic!

Disagreeing with the official findings caries that burden of responsibility.

No it doesn't! Sorry to burst your bubble, but it isn't automatically so that what the Government tells you is the truth unless you can prove them wrong. I know this crushes your little world, but there have been enough examples by now of the Government lying to the people and the only ones who don't see that are zealots like you!

You can?t even prove an alternative to the SBT.

No need? you can't even prove the SBT in the first place. It's all theory?..

56 years and your side has nothing.

So, now it's "us against them"? Pathetic?. there is no "your side"... I asked you to show me and you failed. That's all there is!

YOU personally do not know anything about this case outside of all the conspiracy crap you eat up. Good luck with that.

And finally an ad hominem attack on the level of a 12 year old... the weakest form of defense?. Paulie thinks he knows it all but just can't defend or explain it...

Here we go... Paulie is upset. Rather that argue his case, he goes back to the default "Oswald did it alone unless you can prove a conspiracy" crap. Pathetic!

Argue my case? This is how ignorant and uneducated you are.  History is never argued,  its debated.  To debate, one needs facts and you don?t know the case so, you have no facts.  Help society, get an education. You?re embarrassing ?your side?.

[Charles Collins]

Charles, quite candidly, there is nothing more to learn. NARA has released 99% of the files and if you believe you can learn learn one damn thing from a CT, you?re dreaming.  What you will learn is the Truthers will only continue discussing the same BS day after day. Year after year. Very few have even read the WR.  They?re here seeking confirmation bias and little else. Good luck.

I appreciate your comments Paul. I keep hoping that something new will be uncovered but know that it is unlikely. My first post here involved looking for evidence of the timing of the shot that the WC never defined the timing of. I have explored many avenues and learned a lot. I don?t claim to be an expert, don?t have all the details memorized, but I do believe that I have looked at this with an open mind. And that is the point that I wish to make.

[Martin Weidmann]

Here we go... Paulie is upset. Rather that argue his case, he goes back to the default "Oswald did it alone unless you can prove a conspiracy" crap. Pathetic!

Argue my case? This is how ignorant and uneducated you are.  History is never argued,  its debated.  To debate, one needs facts and you don?t know the case so, you have no facts.  Help society, get an education. You?re embarrassing ?your side?.

More hot air from a "Oswald did it alone" shill. Another "I'm the greatest and know all" crappy post.

Paulie will go on and on with this kind of crap, but what he will never do is support anything he says with actual evidence. So much for Paulie?..