Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.

[Ross Lidell]

You don't have "a shred of evidence" that the rifle is owned by someone other than Lee Oswald.

Hey stupid, I am not the one claiming it belonged to someone else. It's you who is claiming that the rifle belonged to Oswald. You need to prove that and your are failing miserably.

And yes, I am laughing.... You are actually making my day with the superficial crap you come up with. It's a welcome diversion in these dire times.

You should try stand up comedy. You seem to be very good at it.

Hey stupid, I am not the one claiming it belonged to someone else. It's you who is claiming that the rifle belonged to Oswald. You need to prove that and your are failing miserably.

More insults, no facts. Why? Because you've got nuthin (sic) of any substance. You provide no speculative narrative because you are afraid of scrutiny of your peculiar, illogical ideas.

Let's figure this out logically.

I'm stating that Lee Oswald owned the rifle he held in the Neely Street Dallas "backyard photograph" taken by his wife Marina Oswald. This is based on an analysis of the historical record.

You say that you're "not the one claiming it belonged to someone else": It being the rifle in the backyard photograph.

OKAY. 2 possibilities:

1.) Someone other than you is claiming it (the rifle Oswald held in the picture) belonged to someone else.

(In this scenario: You refuse to nominate who the person is or you don't know who the person is)

2.) You are claiming the rifle in the photograph does not belong to Lee Oswald but are not claiming it belongs to someone else. [The words "the one" were possibly accidentally included as you fired-off a swift, angry response to my polite, reasoned comment.]

(Perplexingly, you seem to consider that it's not necessary to provide an explanation for these mutually exclusive beliefs)

You insist that I have to prove something but you don't have to prove anything. Hmmmm.

This is a typical trollish, nutcase mindset.



 

[Martin Weidmann]

Hey stupid, I am not the one claiming it belonged to someone else. It's you who is claiming that the rifle belonged to Oswald. You need to prove that and your are failing miserably.

More insults, no facts. Why? Because you've got nuthin (sic) of any substance. You provide no speculative narrative because you are afraid of scrutiny of your peculiar, illogical ideas.

Stop showing off your ignorance. I don't need to prove anything as I have no "illogical ideas". Those "ideas" only exist in your imagination.  And please don't talk to me about facts as you clearly have no idea what that word means.

You are the one who rather stupidly claims that Oswald owned the rifle he was photographed with and the only "proof" you present for that claim is the photograph.

Let's figure this out logically.

I'm stating that Lee Oswald owned the rifle he held in the Neely Street Dallas "backyard photograph" taken by his wife Marina Oswald. This is based on an analysis of the historical record.

Don't you understand just how pathetic this is? You need to prove that Oswald owned the rifle he was holding in the photograph. There is nothing in the "historical record" that supports such a conclusion. All you really have is a selfserving opinion which isn't evidence or proof of anything.

You say that you're "not the one claiming it belonged to someone else": It being the rifle in the backyard photograph.

OKAY. 2 possibilities:

1.) Someone other than you is claiming it (the rifle Oswald held in the picture) belonged to someone else.

(In this scenario: You refuse to nominate who the person is or you don't know who the person is)

2.) You are claiming the rifle in the photograph does not belong to Lee Oswald but are not claiming it belongs to someone else. [The words "the one" were possibly accidentally included as you fired-off a swift, angry response to my polite, reasoned comment.]

(Perplexingly, you seem to consider that it's not necessary to provide an explanation for these mutually exclusive beliefs)

You insist that I have to prove something but you don't have to prove anything. Hmmmm.

This is a typical trollish, nutcase mindset.

1.) Someone other than you is claiming it (the rifle Oswald held in the picture) belonged to someone else.
2.) You are claiming the rifle in the photograph does not belong to Lee Oswald but are not claiming it belongs to someone else.

More strawman crap. Nobody is claiming either, nor do they need to. I can understand why you want to talk about claims others never made instead of talking about the claim you yourself have made, because you have nothing to support your pathetic claim.

There is no evidence to support the conclusion that Oswald owned the rifle he was photographed with. All the photograph proves is that Oswald was holding a rifle when the picture was taken. Period!

You insist that I have to prove something but you don't have to prove anything. Hmmmm.

This really isn't very difficult to understand for anybody who has a functional brain.

You made the claim that Oswald owned the rifle he was photographed with, so you need to prove that (and you can't!)

I made no claim at all so I don't have to prove anything. Your silly strawman BS does not alter this! So, give it up please. I'm not going to play your silly game.

[Ross Lidell]

Stop showing off your ignorance. I don't need to prove anything as I have no "illogical ideas". Those "ideas" only exist in your imagination.  And please don't talk to me about facts as you clearly have no idea what that word means.

You are the one who rather stupidly claims that Oswald owned the rifle he was photographed with and the only "proof" you present for that claim is the photograph.

Don't you understand just how pathetic this is? You need to prove that Oswald owned the rifle he was holding in the photograph. There is nothing in the "historical record" that supports such a conclusion. All you really have is a selfserving opinion which isn't evidence or proof of anything.

1.) Someone other than you is claiming it (the rifle Oswald held in the picture) belonged to someone else.
2.) You are claiming the rifle in the photograph does not belong to Lee Oswald but are not claiming it belongs to someone else.

More strawman crap. Nobody is claiming either, nor do they need to. I can understand why you want to talk about claims others never made instead of talking about the claim you yourself have made, because you have nothing to support your pathetic claim.

There is no evidence to support the conclusion that Oswald owned the rifle he was photographed with. All the photograph proves is that Oswald was holding a rifle when the picture was taken. Period!

You insist that I have to prove something but you don't have to prove anything. Hmmmm.

This really isn't very difficult to understand for anybody who has a functional brain.

You made the claim that Oswald owned the rifle he was photographed with, so you need to prove that (and you can't!)

I made no claim at all so I don't have to prove anything. Your silly strawman BS does not alter this! So, give it up please. I'm not going to play your silly game.

The problem that exists in this debate is caused by the fact that you're deliberately unwilling to reveal "your" opinion when you assert that mine is wrong. It's obvious that you are just playing a silly game. You could fairly be described as a mischievous contrarian.

Using the word "pathetic" repeatedly indicates you are incapable of mounting a reasoned intellectual explanation for your strange theory. This is the intellectual lightweight's attitude that "insults" trump "facts".

Your illogical belief that Lee Oswald did not own the rifle in the backyard photograph taken in late March 1963 demonstrates a lack of critical thinking. You ignore the fact that Oswald purchased a rifle in March 1963 (using his Hidell alias) from Kleins Sporting Goods of Chicago. You don't need to be a genius to conclude that this is the rifle in the photograph. CLUE: The time frame!

If you don't think the rifle in the late March 1963 photograph (Neely Street Dallas) is owned by Lee Oswald who had recently purchased a rifle (using his alias Hidell): You need to provide evidence that it's some other rifle owned by someone else. Of course, you are exempted from this obligation if you are a troll.

I note that you don't attempt to dismiss the historical record related to Lee Oswald's purchase of a rifle using "his" alias A. Hidell. Why not?

You're entire "career" as a JFK Assassination debate "contrarian" relies on the fact that nobody can prove something to 100% certainty: Certainly not to an obstinate fool.

Next time: Why don't you add a couple of LOLs to your "PATHETICs"? That should make you feel clever.

[Martin Weidmann]

The problem that exists in this debate is caused by the fact that you're deliberately unwilling to reveal "your" opinion when you assert that mine is wrong. It's obvious that you are just playing a silly game. You could fairly be described as a mischievous contrarian.

Using the word "pathetic" repeatedly indicates you are incapable of mounting a reasoned intellectual explanation for your strange theory. This is the intellectual lightweight's attitude that "insults" trump "facts".

Your illogical belief that Lee Oswald did not own the rifle in the backyard photograph taken in late March 1963 demonstrates a lack of critical thinking. You ignore the fact that Oswald purchased a rifle in March 1963 (using his Hidell alias) from Kleins Sporting Goods of Chicago. You don't need to be a genius to conclude that this is the rifle in the photograph. CLUE: The time frame!

If you don't think the rifle in the late March 1963 photograph (Neely Street Dallas) is owned by Lee Oswald who had recently purchased a rifle (using his alias Hidell): You need to provide evidence that it's some other rifle owned by someone else. Of course, you are exempted from this obligation if you are a troll.

I note that you don't attempt to dismiss the historical record related to Lee Oswald's purchase of a rifle using "his" alias A. Hidell. Why not?

You're entire "career" as a JFK Assassination debate "contrarian" relies on the fact that nobody can prove something to 100% certainty: Certainly not to an obstinate fool.

Next time: Why don't you add a couple of LOLs to your "PATHETICs"? That should make you feel clever.

I already told you that I am not going to play your silly game by discussing any further strawman arguments you made up and/or what you feel I should or should not do. You have yet again written a post which contains zero evidence or proof for your silly claim that Oswald owned the rifle because he was photographed with it.

Against my better judgment, and (I'll admit) for fun's sake, I'll give this one more try to set you straight.

The problem that exists in this debate is caused by the fact that you're deliberately unwilling to reveal "your" opinion

Because there is and never was no such opinion. Are you getting this, or is this already way over your head?

when you assert that mine is wrong.

I have never asserted any such thing. I have merely asked you to provide proof for your own claim. You really are not getting any of this, aren't you?

Using the word "pathetic" repeatedly indicates you are incapable of mounting a reasoned intellectual explanation for your strange theory.

Pray tell, what "strange theory" would that be? The one you just made up, perhaps?

This is the intellectual lightweight's attitude that "insults" trump "facts".

That's funny since you haven't presented a single fact yet and you clearly do not know the meaning of the word.

Your illogical belief that Lee Oswald did not own the rifle in the backyard photograph taken in late March 1963 demonstrates a lack of critical thinking. You ignore the fact that Oswald purchased a rifle in March 1963 (using his Hidell alias) from Kleins Sporting Goods of Chicago. You don't need to be a genius to conclude that this is the rifle in the photograph. CLUE: The time frame!

You know what, you are right... you do indeed not have to be a genius to conclude that.... All you need to be is a superficial, narrow minded, clown with a low IQ who jumps to conclusions that are not supported by the evidence. And just in case you don't understand, I'm talking about you!

If you don't think the rifle in the late March 1963 photograph (Neely Street Dallas) is owned by Lee Oswald who had recently purchased a rifle (using his alias Hidell): You need to provide evidence that it's some other rifle owned by someone else.

No I don't need to provide evidence that your claim is wrong. Only people who can not support their claim with actual facts and evidence ask others to prove them wrong.

I note that you don't attempt to dismiss the historical record related to Lee Oswald's purchase of a rifle using "his" alias A. Hidell. Why not?

Don't need to... there is no such "historical record". All there is, is a photocopy taken from a now missing microfilm showing an orderform and an envelope which according to one handwriting expert was written by Oswald. That's it.... All the other Klein's documents are derived from that particular piece of paper, which actually doesn't prove a damned thing since handwriting examination isn't an exact science to begin with. But that may well be too much for your brain to comprehend.

You're entire "career" as a JFK Assassination debate "contrarian" relies on the fact that nobody can prove something to 100% certainty

Wrong again... There are plenty of things in this case that I have accepted as factual, although others have disagreed with it. The BY photos for one... I do not believe they were faked. I think they are probably authentic. Now, before you start jumping for joy, I am not so sure about the circumstances under which the photos were taken, but that's another matter.

Constantly calling me a contrarian is actually the same as admitting defeat. Your arguments are just not good enough to convince anybody with a functional brain and you can't deal with that, which is why you call me a contrarian. Thank you for the compliment! 

And finally, to get back to this for a second;

In this last post alone you have called me (1) a mischievous contrarian (2) incapable of mounting a reasoned intellectual explanation (3) a troll and (4) an obstinate fool. There may actually be something to the comment you made.

What was it again that you said?....... This is the intellectual lightweight's attitude that "insults" trump "facts". Yes, you are probably right!

[John Iacoletti]

Constantly calling me a contrarian is actually the same as admitting defeat.

Yep.  It's what they do when they can't support their claims with evidence.  Try to shift the burden of proof, and if that doesn't work then try to attack your standards for accepting that a claim is true.  Apparently faith should be good enough, unless you're a "contrarian".

[Bill Chapman]

It was Hidell's rifle. He was in charge of armament procurement.

[Walt Cakebread]

It was Hidell's rifle. He was in charge of armament procurement.

He was in charge of armament procurement.

I believe that's correct....George De M had bought a money order and gave it to Lee to send to Klein's for the purchase of the carcano.

And technically that makes George De M the owner of the rifle......   

[John Iacoletti]

He was in charge of armament procurement.

I believe that's correct....George De M had bought a money order and gave it to Lee to send to Klein's for the purchase of the carcano.

And technically that makes George De M the owner of the rifle......

Walt Fabrication.