The preponderance of the evidence

[Charles Collins]

On 11/23/63 the FBI lab examined the rifle closely and found no prints on the rifle. They also do not mention finding any adhesive matter.

Only after the rifle was returned to the DPD and Oswald was killed did Day produce the index card.

Can you rule out that after it's return, the rifle wasn't used to create the index card?

So I will take your response to my question as non responsive.

[Martin Weidmann]

So I will take your response to my question as non responsive.

Oh, I responded alright. You just didn't like it.

You are not interested in the facts of this case or in looking at the evidence with an "open mind"

Instead, anything you don't like, you just dismiss. Nothing more than another LN troll

[Alan Ford]

On 11/23/63 the FBI lab examined the rifle closely and found no prints on the rifle. They also do not mention finding any adhesive matter.

Only after the rifle was returned to the DPD and Oswald was killed did Day produce the index card.

Can you rule out that after it's return, the rifle wasn't used to create the index card?

Don't you get it yet, Mr Weidmann? Mr Collins will automatically rule out anything that might threaten the fairy tale he has fallen for. That's what 'keeping an open mind' means for Warren Gullibles like Mr Collins. 

[John Iacoletti]

The evidence and conclusion was independently verified:

Latona testified that this palmprint was the right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.58 At the request of the Commission, Arthur Mandella, fingerprint expert with the New York City Police Department, conducted an independent examination and also determined that this was the right palmprint of Oswald.59 Latona's findings were also confirmed by Ronald G. Wittmus, another FBI fingerprint



I most certainly find this more convincing than anything I have seen that tries to cast doubt on it.

A partial palm print on an index card was matched to Oswald, and this convinces you of what, exactly?

[Charles Collins]

Oh, I responded alright. You just didn't like it.

You are not interested in the facts of this case or in looking at the evidence with an "open mind"

Instead, anything you don't like, you just dismiss. Nothing more than another LN troll

You responded but failed to address the question.

[John Iacoletti]

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the adhesive matter is not as described?

So you?re more than willing to accept a claim made with no supporting evidence until somebody proves the claim false?

I have an invisible pet dragon named Charles. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that he is not as I describe?

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

Charles, I?ve asked this question of the truthers for some 50 years.  They NEVER answer.  They can?t. Not one piece of hard, credible evidence for conspiracy exists.  They don?t care.  They each have their pet theory.  The best arguments are between the kooks themselves. Yet, history should be debated, not argued. They cannot debate it.  They have no evidence.

Hey good buddy, it's time to wake up and remember that you claim Oswald is guilty

" I?ve asked this question of the truthers for some 50 years.  They NEVER answer.  They can?t. Not one piece of hard, credible evidence for conspiracy exists."


It is too bad you happen to have this idea that LHO is responsible. You would think after over a half a century you and your group of storytellers really need to question your own failed ideas.
When you make a claim it is up to you to prove it, but of course, in this case, you can't.

Let me leave you with this wonderful quote that you should learn from because it describes you, the WC and all the lazy ideas. Plus I think you have heard it before. I know you'll agree.

 "The best arguments are between the kooks themselves. Yet, history should be debated, not argued. They cannot debate it.  They have no evidence."

[Martin Weidmann]

You responded but failed to address the question.

No.. like a true LN you simply did not like the implication