Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory

[Richard Smith]

Oh look at the little puppy following me around..... 

When you have nothing of significance or substance to offer, please don't just go off on another "what about" rant that goes nowhere, as per usual.

The presence of the murder weapon left at the scene of the crime is highly incriminatory absent some alternative explanation for its presence.  There is none in this case.

Utter BS. They never looked at the possibility of an alternative explanation, so there isn't one. Did it ever occur to you that the rifle might have been there are the result of a conspiracy?

The most idiotic part of what you are saying is this; let's say I am in a position to "borrow" your gun and I take it and shoot somebody with it, would leaving that gun at the crime scene - by your own logic - incriminate you as the shooter?

Your word salad still does not answer the basic question;

Even if (and that's a massive "if") the rifle belonged to Oswald (in as much as that he ordered it for himself and received it from Klein's), how does that prove that Oswald himself was on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired?

Don't worry, I won't be surprised if you ignore the question or simply can not answer it. It would be nothing else than the game you've been playing for the past 6 months or so. I am used to it by now.

Personal commentary - check
Insults - check
No substantive response - big check.

This is real simple.  It does not require going down a contrarian rabbit hole.  The rifle belonged to Oswald.  It was found at Oswald's place of employment.  The scene of a shooting with a rifle.  There is zero evidence - and you haven't even attempted to provide any - that anyone other than Oswald had access to this rifle and carried it to the TSBD.  Oswald had a chance to offer an explanation.  He provided no answer.  Instead he denied owning any rifle.  A lie as confirmed by his own wife, photos, and Klein's documents.  Why would Oswald lie about this to the police?  Oswald doesn't say, for example, that he owned a rifle and the police could find it in the Paine's garage.  You don't find the presence of a weapon at a murder scene highly incriminatory of its owner? And you imply that its presence alone doesn't implicate its owner when that person can't account for it being there, lies about his ownership of the rifle, and has no credible alibi for the moment of the crime?  Unreal.   A time machine would be necessary to ever convict anyone of a crime in your contrarian world. 

[Richard Smith]

Some nut named Gary Fannis says Ruth Paine did it. He thinks she lied about taking her kids to the dentist that morning and instead used that time to ferry the rifle to Elm Street. Here's the whole sordid story:

I give him credit for at least trying to provide an explanation despite it being completely baseless and insane.  Contrarians like Martin IMPLY that something like that happened but won't even articulate a theory or confirm that this is their position because they know it is impossible.  The rifle just magically appears at the TSBD in their fantasy world.  No explanation much less actual evidence is required for how it might have gotten there if Oswald didn't bring it.  A time machine would be necessary to prove that Oswald - the owner of that rifle who worked in that building brought it there.  The fact that Oswald lies to the police and denies ownership of any rifle apparently doesn't faze them.  In fact, they just ignore this like a pro bono defense attorney trying to defend a guilty client.  The fact that Oswald's prints are on the rifle doesn't faze them.  No fact that they don't want to accept can ever be proven to their subjective satisfaction.  Hopefully Martin is not on the jury of that guy Idaho.  There is no time machine that places him at the scene either.  Just the evidence he left behind. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Personal commentary - check
Insults - check
No substantive response - big check.

This is real simple.  It does not require going down a contrarian rabbit hole.  The rifle belonged to Oswald.  It was found at Oswald's place of employment.  The scene of a shooting with a rifle.  There is zero evidence - and you haven't even attempted to provide any - that anyone other than Oswald had access to this rifle and carried it to the TSBD.  Oswald had a chance to offer an explanation.  He provided no answer.  Instead he denied owning any rifle.  A lie as confirmed by his own wife, photos, and Klein's documents.  Why would Oswald lie about this to the police?  Oswald doesn't say, for example, that he owned a rifle and the police could find it in the Paine's garage.  You don't find the presence of a weapon at a murder scene highly incriminatory of its owner? And you imply that its presence alone doesn't implicate its owner when that person can't account for it being there, lies about his ownership of the rifle, and has no credible alibi for the moment of the crime?  Unreal.   A time machine would be necessary to ever convict anyone of a crime in your contrarian world.

Repeating the same bs over and over again and expecting a different result is a fool's game.

Bottom line is a simple one; You can not explain how the presence of the rifle at the TSBD proves that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. Period!

The rifle belonged to Oswald.

Did it? If that is true, why can't you prove it?

There is zero evidence - and you haven't even attempted to provide any - that anyone other than Oswald had access to this rifle and carried it to the TSBD.

Why don't you stop making idiotic statements and first prove that Oswald had access to the rifle that was found at the TSBD and/or that he carried it into the TSBD?

Oh wait, you can't prove it. You're just making superficial assumptions for which you can not offer a shred of evidence.

Why would Oswald lie about this to the police?

What makes you so sure that Oswald lied to the police?

You don't find the presence of a weapon at a murder scene highly incriminatory of its owner?

Sure, it would be, but you can't even prove that Oswald owned the rifle that was found at the TSBD and the presence of a rifle doesn't automatically prove that the owner was there as well.

A time machine would be necessary to ever convict anyone of a crime in your contrarian world.

Nah, not really. All it would take is conclusive authentic evidence instead of a bunch of unsupported assumptions and wild speculation.

I'll ask again;

Even if (and that's a massive "if") the rifle belonged to Oswald, how does that prove that Oswald himself was on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired?

Try to come up with a credible reply for once!

[Martin Weidmann]

I give him credit for at least trying to provide an explanation despite it being completely baseless and insane.  Contrarians like Martin IMPLY that something like that happened but won't even articulate a theory or confirm that this is their position because they know it is impossible.  The rifle just magically appears at the TSBD in their fantasy world.  No explanation much less actual evidence is required for how it might have gotten there if Oswald didn't bring it.  A time machine would be necessary to prove that Oswald - the owner of that rifle who worked in that building brought it there.  The fact that Oswald lies to the police and denies ownership of any rifle apparently doesn't faze them.  In fact, they just ignore this like a pro bono defense attorney trying to defend a guilty client.  The fact that Oswald's prints are on the rifle doesn't faze them.  No fact that they don't want to accept can ever be proven to their subjective satisfaction.  Hopefully Martin is not on the jury of that guy Idaho.  There is no time machine that places him at the scene either.  Just the evidence he left behind.

The fact that Oswald's prints are on the rifle doesn't faze them.

Are they?

The FBI examined the rifle the day after the shooting and found no trace of either a print or of any kind of residue of a print having been lifted from the weapon.

So, why don't you actually prove that Oswald's prints were on the rifle, instead of making bold statements you can't support with authentic conclusive evidence?

[Richard Smith]

Repeating the same bs over and over again and expecting a different result is a fool's game.

Bottom line is a simple one; You can not explain how the presence of the rifle at the TSBD proves that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. Period!

The rifle belonged to Oswald.

Did it? If that is true, why can't you prove it?

There is zero evidence - and you haven't even attempted to provide any - that anyone other than Oswald had access to this rifle and carried it to the TSBD.

Why don't you stop making idiotic statements and first prove that Oswald had access to the rifle that was found at the TSBD and/or that he carried it into the TSBD?

Oh wait, you can't prove it. You're just making superficial assumptions for which you can not offer a shred of evidence.

Why would Oswald lie about this to the police?

What makes you so sure that Oswald lied to the police?

You don't find the presence of a weapon at a murder scene highly incriminatory of its owner?

Sure, it would be, but you can't even prove that Oswald owned the rifle that was found at the TSBD and the presence of a rifle doesn't automatically prove that the owner was there as well.

A time machine would be necessary to ever convict anyone of a crime in your contrarian world.

Nah, not really. All it would take is conclusive authentic evidence instead of a bunch of unsupported assumptions and wild speculation.

I'll ask again;

Even if (and that's a massive "if") the rifle belonged to Oswald, how does that prove that Oswald himself was on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired?

Try to come up with a credible reply for once!

The old moving the goal posts trick.  Your original question was premised on Oswald's ownership of the rifle.  Now you are framing this in terms of doubt of his ownership because you apparently realize how idiotic it is to claim there is any doubt that Oswald was the shooter if it was his rifle found on the 6th floor.  Dropping a murder weapon that can be linked to a specific person at the crime scene is about as incriminating as it gets absent an alibi or explanation for its presence.  Neither of which Oswald provided.   To the contrary, he lied and denied ownership of the rifle.  You have not provided nor even suggested any alternative explanation for the presence of Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor.  Just because it is not impossible as a theoretical matter that someone else could have brought it there and there is no time machine to disprove that baseless possibility does not create any doubt.  Disproving the negative to your subjective satisfaction is not a reasonable standard in the absence of any evidence that someone else had access to the rifle and an opportunity to plant it at the crime scene.  If it were, no criminal could ever be convicted because there would always be the theoretical possibility that the evidence against them was planted.   That is contrarian kookery to suggest false doubt by any means.   There is zero evidence that anyone other than Oswald had access to that rifle and brought it to his workplace.  You certainly have provided none or even attempted to do so.  Just like Oswald because he was guilty and could not explain the presence of his rifle at the murder scene. 

[Martin Weidmann]

The old moving the goal posts trick.  Your original question was premised on Oswald's ownership of the rifle.  Now you are framing this in terms of doubt of his ownership because you apparently realize how idiotic it is to claim there is any doubt that Oswald was the shooter if it was his rifle found on the 6th floor.  Dropping a murder weapon that can be linked to a specific person at the crime scene is about as incriminating as it gets absent an alibi or explanation for its presence.  Neither of which Oswald provided.   To the contrary, he lied and denied ownership of the rifle.  You have not provided nor even suggested any alternative explanation for the presence of Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor.  Just because it is not impossible as a theoretical matter that someone else could have brought it there and there is no time machine to disprove that baseless possibility does not create any doubt.  Disproving the negative to your subjective satisfaction is not a reasonable standard in the absence of any evidence that someone else had access to the rifle and an opportunity to plant it at the crime scene.  If it were, no criminal could ever be convicted because there would always be the theoretical possibility that the evidence against them was planted.   That is contrarian kookery to suggest false doubt by any means.   There is zero evidence that anyone other than Oswald had access to that rifle and brought it to his workplace.  You certainly have provided none or even attempted to do so.  Just like Oswald because he was guilty and could not explain the presence of his rifle at the murder scene.

Your original question was premised on Oswald's ownership of the rifle.

No it wasn't. You do understand that anybody can read back what my initial question was. Here it is again;

Even if (and that's a massive "if") the rifle belonged to Oswald (in as much as that he ordered it for himself and received it from Klein's), how does that prove that Oswald himself was on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired?

Why are you misrepresenting the question?

how idiotic it is to claim there is any doubt that Oswald was the shooter if it was his rifle found on the 6th floor.  Dropping a murder weapon that can be linked to a specific person at the crime scene is about as incriminating as it gets absent an alibi or explanation for its presence.

Are you really this superficial and naive? All you are presenting here is the hilarious assumption that the (alleged) owner of a weapon found at a crime scene is, without doubt, the shooter, when you can't even prove to a reasonable standard of proof that the man is actually the owner (and had possession) of that particular weapon. Wow! So much ignorance should be forbidden by law!

You have not provided nor even suggested any alternative explanation for the presence of Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor. 

As long as you can't prove it was "Oswald's rifle" on the 6th floor, I don't need to provide or suggest anything.

Just because it is not impossible as a theoretical matter that someone else could have brought it there and there is no time machine to disprove that baseless possibility does not create any doubt.

Oh boy, you're all over the place again. Why does that keep happening to you? How can you call a possibility "baseless" when you've just said that "there is no time machine to disprove it it"?

And the possibility of someone else planting the rifle at the 6th floor is most certainly not impossible. So, as long as you can't prove it was Oswald who left the rifle there, the possibility that he didn't leave it there does in fact create reasonable doubt.

An honest investigation is basically a process of elimination. When you can't eliminate a possibility you can not simply ignore it because it's inconvenient.

Disproving the negative to your subjective satisfaction is not a reasonable standard in the absence of any evidence that someone else had access to the rifle and an opportunity to plant it at the crime scene.

I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm asking you to prove that Oswald did own that particular rifle and left it at the 6th floor.

There is zero evidence that anyone other than Oswald had access to that rifle and brought it to his workplace.

There is zero evidence that Oswald had access to the rifle that was found on the 6th floor. If you disagree, just show me the evidence and I'll gladly admit that I am wrong.

You certainly have provided none or even attempted to do so.

What is there for me to provide? I have seen no evidence whatsoever that shows that the rifle found at the 6th floor of the TSBD is the same one that allegedly was stored in Ruth Paine's garage.

When are you going to understand that your assumptions and highly speculative conjecture are not evidence?

[John Iacoletti]

This is real simple.  It does not require going down a contrarian rabbit hole.  The rifle belonged to Oswald.  It was found at Oswald's place of employment.  The scene of a shooting with a rifle.  There is zero evidence - and you haven't even attempted to provide any - that anyone other than Oswald had access to this rifle and carried it to the TSBD. 

But “Richard”, there is zero evidence that Oswald had access to this particular rifle and carried it to the TSBD. So what’s the difference?

Oswald had a chance to offer an explanation.  He provided no answer.  Instead he denied owning any rifle.

And you cannot prove he did own any rifle at that particular time. Or that this was a “lie”.

You don't find the presence of a weapon at a murder scene highly incriminatory of its owner?

Yes, if you can prove who the owner is. And that he used it. And that it was actually the murder weapon.

[John Iacoletti]

Serious question... What would you consider proof of someone's guilt in a murder?  What kind of evidence would it take for you to consider someone guilty?

Serious answer: means, motive, opportunity. Along with reliable and conclusive objective evidence of his actual involvement.