CT's, in court how would you defend Oswald?

[Martin Weidmann]

Huh?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

I keep supplying evidence and you haven't yet explained why it shouldn't be regarded as evidence

81 witnesses corroborate 3 shells
3 shells corroborate 81 witnesses

Circular reasoning!

Yeah this old chestnut, they're trying to set up a Lone Gunman and they place shooters in other locations, real smart!

Beside the point and of no value at all.

I knew you couldn't, in fact nobody can precisely date an expended shell and the fact that you even asked shows that you need more ballistics education. Try again!

JohnM

Great... so since you can not prove that the 3 shells found at the TSBD were fired on 11/22/63, they also can not serve as corroboration of your "81 witnesses" claim.

No need for ballistics… just simple down to earth logic. You should try it once.

[Bill Chapman]

I'm fairly confident that most of the people on this board, most of the time, do not have a clue what it is you are rambling about.

There's that Lord Haughty the Condescender gaslighting again.

 

[John Mytton]

81 witnesses corroborate 3 shells
3 shells corroborate 81 witnesses

Circular reasoning!

Beside the point and of no value at all.

Great... so since you can not prove that the 3 shells found at the TSBD were fired on 11/22/63, they also can not serve as corroboration of your "81 witnesses" claim.

No need for ballistics… just simple down to earth logic. You should try it once.

Great... so since you can not prove that the 3 shells found at the TSBD were fired on 11/22/63, they also can not serve as corroboration of your "81 witnesses" claim.

You keep arguing for what I don't know, all I can do is quote evidence.

Norman who was directly below heard 3 shots and shells hitting the floor.
A vast majority of eyewitnesses heard 3 shots.
3 shells found in the sniper's nest.

No need for ballistics… just simple down to earth logic. You should try it once.

No need for ballistics in a case which involves a rifle murder, really?

JohnM

[Bill Chapman]

3 expended shells along with Norman's recollection directly below is corroborated by 81% of the eyewitnesses.

Circular argument.
 
The amount of eyewitnesses who heard shots from more than 1 direction is statistically very low.

Means absolutely nothing. Even if nobody heard shots from another direction, it still does not prove there were no such shots.

Can you show they weren't fired that day?

Don't need to. If you can not prove those three shells were fired that day (and you can't, regardless of what Norman thought he had heard) those shells do not corroborate anything.

Means absolutely nothing. Even if nobody heard shots from another direction, it still does not prove there were no such shots.
>>> You are certainly fond of saying that sort of thing. So, by comparison, does no one seeing or hearing Oswald on the stairs post shots prove that he wasn't on the stairs? Or does this 'Absence-of-Evidence-does-not-necessarily-mean-Evidence-of-Absence' thing of yours short circuit when inconvenient to your contrarianism?

regardless of what Norman thought he had heard
>>> Thought* he heard, huh? LOL.

*You arrogant troll. Do I detect the scent of racism here?
You (and Iacoletti) demean Euins, too.

[Martin Weidmann]

You keep arguing for what I don't know, all I can do is quote evidence.

Norman who was directly below heard 3 shots and shells hitting the floor.
A vast majority of eyewitnesses heard 3 shots.
3 shells found in the sniper's nest.

And you keep repeating the same thing over and over again as if it means something, when it doesn't.

No need for ballistics in a case which involves a rifle murder, really?

JohnM

Who said that? Stop misrepresenting my words, John. I does not make your case more credible!

[Martin Weidmann]

Means absolutely nothing. Even if nobody heard shots from another direction, it still does not prove there were no such shots.
>>> You are certainly fond of saying that sort of thing. So, by comparison, does no one seeing or hearing Oswald on the stairs post shots prove that he wasn't on the stairs? Or does this 'Absence-of-Evidence-does-not-necessarily-mean-Evidence-of-Absence' thing of yours short circuit when inconvenient to your contrarianism?

regardless of what Norman thought he had heard
>>> Thought* he heard, huh? LOL.

*You arrogant troll. Do I detect the scent of racism here?
You (and Iacoletti) demean Euins, too.

By comparison, does no one seeing or hearing Oswald on the stairs post shots prove that he wasn't on the stairs?

No it doesn't. But you need to prove he was there, not that he could have been there.....

*You arrogant troll. Do I detect the scent of racism here?
You (and Iacoletti) demean Euins, too.

You are an idiot. This entire conversation has nothing to do with Euins....

I'm fairly confident that most of the people on this board, most of the time, do not have a clue what it is you are rambling about.

[Richard Smith]

It's even more compelling since according to that chart 95% of the witnesses heard three shots or less.  If three shots were fired from the SN, that accounts for all these shots. There would be no second shooter.  So one shooter firing all the shots from the SN.

[Martin Weidmann]

It's even more compelling since according to that chart 95% of the witnesses heard three shots or less.  If three shots were fired from the SN, that accounts for all these shots. There would be no second shooter.  So one shooter firing all the shots from the SN.

This is so stupid, that it doesn't even warrant a reply.