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

[Thomas Graves]

Admit it, as far as you’re concerned, anything Oswald did would indicate guilt in your eyes.

Not true, Iacoletti.

"Breaking wind" is a perfectly normal and not necessarily incriminating thing to do from time to time.

Hell, even I have done it once.

(Or twice, absolute max.)

You?  Seein' as how you're so full of beans and everything ...

-- MWT   

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

Admit it, as far as you’re concerned, anything Oswald did would indicate guilt in your eyes.

Not true, Iacoletti.

"Breaking wind" is a perfectly normal and not necessarily incriminating "human" thing to do.

Hell, even I have done it once.

(Or twice, max.)




You?  Seein' as how you're so full of beans and everything ...

-- MWT   

Are you saying you did it? I knew Oswald didn't. Why have you been so dishonest about the assassination until now?

[Thomas Graves]

Are you saying you did it? I knew Oswald didn't. Why have you been so dishonest about the assassination until now?

Even if in jest (which I don't think it is in this case), is it against the rules of this forum to call another member "dishonest"?

Inquiring minds want to know, Duncan.

-- MWT 

PS  Yes, Kleinschmidt (is that your real name?), I admit that I did it -- I xxxxxx once (or maybe twice, max) back in the day.

Okay?

PPS  Actually, I confess. While my "double" was in gym class at Muirlands Junior High School in La Jolla, California, I was in Dallas, Texas, killing JFK for the CIA.

John Armstrong undoubtedly has all of the details.

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

Even if in jest (which I don't think it is in this case), is it against the rules of this forum to call another member "dishonest"?

I have done an outstanding job of distracting you. You have not brought up the KGB, CIA, spies, etc in days, to me anyway. Very interesting. You are focused

[Thomas Graves]

I have done an outstanding job of distracting you. You have not brought up the KGB, CIA, spies, etc in days, to me anyway. Very interesting. You are focused.

Peter,

Nice damage-control "spin" job!

Regardless, now that you've brought it up, why does my posting about "the KGB, CIA, spies, etc," bug you so much?

Do you think Yuri Nosenko, the guy who eventually convinced CIA that the KGB (there I go, again) had had nothing to do with Oswald in the USSR and that there were no moles or triple-agents in U.S. Intelligence ... was a true defector?

Do you think Nosenko, with a little help from some spiteful and underendowed CIA officers, didn't destroy CIA's counterintelligence efforts against Russia and thereby enable someone like Aldrich Ames go undetected for as long as he did (9  years, iirc)?

Do you think Vladimir Putin and his virtual agent, Julian Assange, had nothing to do with "useful idiot" Donald Trump's getting "elected"?

LOL

-- MWT 

[Thomas Graves]

I know you don't like it, "Richard", but that's the nature of what it means to prove something.  If you have no evidence whatsoever that Oswald carried a rifle into the building (and you don't), then you don't get to claim that you've proven it.

That's right, Richard.

Just remember: If no one actually sees a bear defecate in the woods, it didn't defecate in the woods.

Next to the tree that didn't fall.

-- MWT 

[Richard Smith]

That's right, Richard.

Just remember: If no one actually sees a bear defecate in the woods, it didn't defecate in the woods.

Next to the tree that didn't fall.

-- MWT 

It's a bizarre form of "logic" that CTers apply to this case.  They suggest here that because no one "saw" Oswald carry a rifle into the TSBD that somehow creates doubt of the fact (i.e. there is "no evidence whatsoever" LOL!).  But the rifle was wrapped in a paper bag.  So unless a witness had x-ray vision no one could actually see the contents of the bag.  This entirely ignores the totality of evidence such as the serial number of the rifle sent to Oswald's PO Box matching the one found in the TSBD.  The fact that Oswald was seen carrying a long bag that can't otherwise be accounted for in anyway except as containing the rifle.  The fact that Oswald lied about owing a rifle, there are pictures of him holding it, and his wife confirmed he owned and stored a rifle in the Paine's garage.  It's a slam dunk of evidence rebutted only by the ridiculous argument that because no one can see through paper there is somehow doubt of the matter.  Absurd and a great example of the dishonest contrarian approach.  Focus on one aspect of the evidence as though removed from the totality of evidence.  Frame the discussion in terms of an impossible standard of proof (i.e. no one can see through paper).  From this imply there is false doubt.  Repeat endlessly.

[Bill Chapman]

It's a bizarre form of "logic" that CTers apply to this case.  They suggest here that because no one "saw" Oswald carry a rifle into the TSBD that somehow creates doubt of the fact (i.e. there is "no evidence whatsoever" LOL!).  But the rifle was wrapped in a paper bag.  So unless a witness had x-ray vision no one could actually see the contents of the bag.  This entirely ignores the totality of evidence such as the serial number of the rifle sent to Oswald's PO Box matching the one found in the TSBD.  The fact that Oswald was seen carrying a long bag that can't otherwise be accounted for in anyway except as containing the rifle.  The fact that Oswald lied about owing a rifle, there are pictures of him holding it, and his wife confirmed he owned and stored a rifle in the Paine's garage.  It's a slam dunk of evidence rebutted only by the ridiculous argument that because no one can see through paper there is somehow doubt of the matter.  Absurd and a great example of the dishonest contrarian approach.  Focus on one aspect of the evidence as though removed from the totality of evidence.  Frame the discussion in terms of an impossible standard of proof (i.e. no one can see through paper).  From this imply there is false doubt.  Repeat endlessly.

CT Central Annual Meeting: