CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?

[Bill Chapman]

Are you new here?

There are several super long threads about the problems with the evidence.

What, too soon?

[Bill Chapman]

The best thing I have ever done on this forum is to put Chapman on ignore. Not having to read his pathetic posts by putting him on ignore is something I recommend to everybody.

Do something useful for once and donate a few bucks

[Richard Smith]

So many words and nothing interesting.

Your every post here takes issue with some aspect of Oswald's guilt. 

Because that's how it works, you fool! Unlike you, I'm not just going to assume Oswald is guilty. When you claim the evidence is conclusive there shouldn't be any problem with somebody like me taking issue with that evidence.

Typically, by applying a laughable impossible standard of proof to the evidence to suggest false doubt of his guilt,

I'm not applying an "impossible standard of proof". Just one that you and your precious evidence seems to be unable to meet. You are behaving like a litte child who can't throw a ball through a hoop and then complains that the hoop is too small. It's hilarious.

then refusing to acknowledge, much less address the absurdity of the direct implications of what you are suggesting having any validity.

What exactly am I suggesting?

What explanation there is for all the evidence and circumstances that lend themselves to Oswald's guilt if he was not the assassin are left to our imagination.

More to your imagination and closed mind. First of all, and you will never accept it, there is very little physical evidence and most of it was handled poorly. Secondly, "the circumstances that lend themselves to Oswald's guilt" is nothing more than his presence at the TSBD and his alleged presence at 10th/Patton about 45 minutes later. That's it!

Having said that, if the official narrative tells us the correct story, one of the things that has always puzzled me is Oswald leaving the TSBD to go to his rooming house without showing any interest in the events at Dealey Plaza.

You are not even suggesting a conspiracy.

Don't have to. If Oswald was indeed set up and he didn't kill Kennedy, it automatically follows that there must have been a conspiracy. That's a given. Some people come up with theories about who was involved etc, but that's not something I'm interested in. In my opinion, if there was indeed a conspiracy, it's highly unlikely we will ever find out who were behind it. I'm only looking into the case against Oswald by answering a simple question; does the evidence show he did it or not?

You act exactly like a pro bono defense attorney from a mail order law school defending a guilty client.

Hilarious. The "mail order law school" was particularly funny. But let me ask you this; do you have experience in dealing with pro bono defense attorneys from a mail order law school defending a guilty client?

A defense attorney doesn't have to explain anything.  They just nitpick the evidence in a desperate attempt to create doubt by any means.  Sound familiar?

Yes, that sounds familiar. So what? Your evidence can withstand scrutiny, can't it? Oh wait.... you don't present evidence.

And you are asking me why I spend time here when you suggest the case is unsolvable and the evidence uncovered by the investigation is incomplete or suspect. 

What's with all the "you suggest" BS.

What more is there for you discuss if you believe the case is unsolvable absent a time machine?

Where exactly did I say that I believe the case is unsolvable?

but you lecture us that the evidence in the JFK assassination is effectively flawed to the point of being unable to reach a conclusion.

I don't lecture anything. I'll leave that to you. But I'm glad you finally start to understand just how flawed the evidence is. 

One question; when will you be discussing the case against Oswald instead of constantly talking about all sorts of other stuff? You do know this is not the "attack Martin Weidmann forum" nor is it the "whining about disbelievers forum"?

Here's something novel, for once; why don't you provide the evidence that shows that Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired? Let's start with that, shall we?

So many meaningless words.  Do you have any other hobbies?  I would assume there are things to do in "Europe" other than discuss the JFK assassination but perhaps not.   You think this case is "solvable" under your impossible standard of proof?  Tell us how so.  How would someone go about solving the case to your impossible standard of proof absent a time machine?  For example, what would you use for evidence?  Spin us a contrarian yarn for a good laugh.

[Martin Weidmann]

So many meaningless words.  Do you have any other hobbies?  I would assume there are things to do in "Europe" other than discuss the JFK assassination but perhaps not.   You think this case is "solvable" under your impossible standard of proof?  Tell us how so.  How would someone go about solving the case to your impossible standard of proof absent a time machine?  For example, what would you use for evidence?  Spin us a contrarian yarn for a good laugh.

This was my question;

When will you be discussing the case against Oswald instead of constantly talking about all sorts of other stuff? You do know this is not the "attack Martin Weidmann forum" nor is it the "whining about disbelievers forum"?

It seems this pathetic rant of yours provides the answer.

One more comment; you also seem unable to stop lying.

You said; You think this case is "solvable" under your impossible standard of proof?

What I actually said is; "In my opinion, if there was indeed a conspiracy, it's highly unlikely we will ever find out who were behind it."

So, there are two possibilities; you either can't comprehend what you are reading or you are simply lying.

[Richard Smith]

This was my question;

When will you be discussing the case against Oswald instead of constantly talking about all sorts of other stuff? You do know this is not the "attack Martin Weidmann forum" nor is it the "whining about disbelievers forum"?

It seems this pathetic rant of yours provides the answer.

One more comment; you also seem unable to stop lying.

You said; You think this case is "solvable" under your impossible standard of proof?

What I actually said is; "In my opinion, if there was indeed a conspiracy, it's highly unlikely we will ever find out who were behind it."

So, there are two possibilities; you either can't comprehend what you are reading or you are simply lying.

So this case is not solvable according to you exactly as I indicated.  If so, why bother with these endless rants and insults? 

[Martin Weidmann]

So this case is not solvable according to you exactly as I indicated.  If so, why bother with these endless rants and insults?

Exactly as expected, more contradictory gibberish from a guy with a reading comprehension problem.

As you are clearly here not to discuss the JFK case, what's next?

[John Iacoletti]

What explanation there is for all the evidence and circumstances that lend themselves to Oswald's guilt if he was not the assassin are left to our imagination. 

…which you have consistently failed to enumerate in any way. BTW, “government said so” is not evidence.

[Richard Smith]

Exactly as expected, more contradictory gibberish from a guy with a reading comprehension problem.

As you are clearly here not to discuss the JFK case, what's next?

It's great when you can't keep your story straight.  You took issue with my characterizing of your looney contrarian position on the case as being unsolvable by posting:  "What I actually said is; "In my opinion, if there was indeed a conspiracy, it's highly unlikely we will ever find out who were behind it." HA HA HA.   So it's "unsolvable" according to you if there was a conspiracy.  Of course, you also find the evidence against Oswald lacking.  Taking us back to the case being unsolvable.  You can't articulate any way to move forward but instead circle back to endless commentary and insults.  A vicious rabbit hole circle of lunacy.