Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory

[Martin Weidmann]

This response is so disorganized and contains so many internal inconsistencies and false premises that it should be framed and placed in the contrarian Hall of Fame.  Again, Martin asked a question that was premised upon Oswald's possession of the rifle.  Then he goes on and on here making a case that there is doubt about Oswald's ownership of the rifle.  We also learn here that if the police find the murder weapon at the scene of the crime and can trace that weapon to a specific individual who can't explain its presence there and has no alibi (in fact lies about ownership of the weapon) that the authorities would have to disprove every other possible way that the weapon could have arrived at that location using something like a time machine.  Martin has finally admitted it!  A time machine is needed in his contrarian world to prove any fact if he can dream up a mere baseless explanation.  His alternative explanation just needs to be theoretically not impossible.  Perhaps Elvis, for example, brought Oswald's rifle to the TSBD.  It's not impossible.  There is absolutely no evidence to suggest this happened, but no one has disproven it to Martin's subjective satisfaction.  So there must be doubt about Oswald doing so even though it is his rifle, at his place of work, with his prints, and he lies to the police about his ownership of the rifle and has no alibi.  Nothing to see there.

Again, Martin asked a question that was premised upon Oswald's possession of the rifle.

What part of "Even if (and that's a massive "if") the rifle belonged to Oswald" did you not understand?

 
We also learn here that if the police find the murder weapon at the scene of the crime and can trace that weapon to a specific individual who can't explain its presence there and has no alibi (in fact lies about ownership of the weapon) that the authorities would have to disprove every other possible way that the weapon could have arrived at that location using something like a time machine.

Utter BS. Your reading comprehension problem is playing up again. The police doesn't have to disprove anything. What they do need to prove is that it was the owner of the weapon who used it and then left it at the crime scene. That's how it works, at least for the sane honest people in the world. You can't just simply say; "you're rifle was there, so you must have been there as well"! But that's exactly what you are, rather foolishly, doing.

Martin has finally admitted it! A time machine is needed in his contrarian world to prove any fact if he can dream up a mere baseless explanation.  His alternative explanation just needs to be theoretically not impossible.

Fool, when I used the words "time machine" I was quoting you.

In reply to this comment from you;

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.

this is what I actually said;

How can you call a possibility "baseless" when you've just said that "there is no time machine to disprove it it"?

I never got a reply, but that's not surprising. What is surprising is that you seem to believe that only the owner of a weapon could have placed it at the crime scene and that all other scenarios are automatically impossible. It is of course completely pathetic, but I've gotten used to this kind of BS coming from you.

Perhaps Elvis, for example, brought Oswald's rifle to the TSBD.  It's not impossible.

When he can't make a normal argument, Richard resorts to argumentum ad absurdum to cover up his total inability to have a normal conversation.

So there must be doubt about Oswald doing so even though it is his rifle, at his place of work, with his prints, and he lies to the police about his ownership of the rifle and has no alibi.

Wash, rinse and repeat!

What Richard didn't produce in his most recent word salad is the answer to a basic question that he has been running away from for more than 6 months now.

Here it is again;

How does the mere presence of a rifle prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired?

Now all we have to do is wait to see what Richard's next evasion will be.

[Richard Smith]

Again, Martin asked a question that was premised upon Oswald's possession of the rifle.

What part of "Even if (and that's a massive "if") the rifle belonged to Oswald" did you not understand?

 
We also learn here that if the police find the murder weapon at the scene of the crime and can trace that weapon to a specific individual who can't explain its presence there and has no alibi (in fact lies about ownership of the weapon) that the authorities would have to disprove every other possible way that the weapon could have arrived at that location using something like a time machine.

Utter BS. Your reading comprehension problem is playing up again. The police doesn't have to disprove anything. What they do need to prove is that it was the owner of the weapon who used it and then left it at the crime scene. That's how it works, at least for the sane honest people in the world. You can't just simply say; "you're rifle was there, so you must have been there as well"! But that's exactly what you are, rather foolishly, doing.

Martin has finally admitted it! A time machine is needed in his contrarian world to prove any fact if he can dream up a mere baseless explanation.  His alternative explanation just needs to be theoretically not impossible.

Fool, when I used the words "time machine" I was quoting you.

In reply to this comment from you;

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.

this is what I actually said;

How can you call a possibility "baseless" when you've just said that "there is no time machine to disprove it it"?

I never got a reply, but that's not surprising. What is surprising is that you seem to believe that only the owner of a weapon could have placed it at the crime scene and that all other scenarios are automatically impossible. It is of course completely pathetic, but I've gotten used to this kind of BS coming from you.

Perhaps Elvis, for example, brought Oswald's rifle to the TSBD.  It's not impossible.

When he can't make a normal argument, Richard resorts to argumentum ad absurdum to cover up his total inability to have a normal conversation.

So there must be doubt about Oswald doing so even though it is his rifle, at his place of work, with his prints, and he lies to the police about his ownership of the rifle and has no alibi.

Wash, rinse and repeat!

What Richard didn't produce in his most recent word salad is the answer to a basic question that he has been running away from for more than 6 months now.

Here it is again;

How does the mere presence of a rifle prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired?

Now all we have to do is wait to see what Richard's next evasion will be.

LOL.  How are you discounting the possibility that Elvis didn't leave the rifle using your bizarre standard?  It's theoretically possible even if there is no evidence of such.  Right?  So disprove it to my subjective satisfaction.  That is the standard you are applying to your "conspirators."  You suggest there is doubt that Oswald left his rifle at the scene by arguing that some unknown conspirator could have left it.  Even though there is zero evidence that anyone other than Oswald had access to his rifle.  The rifle belonged to Oswald.  No one other than Oswald was ever known to have possessed it.  It was found at Oswald's place of employment.  I really can't believe that anyone would struggle so mightily against the obvious conclusion that a murder weapon left at the scene of the crime implicates the owner of that weapon absent some explanation from the owner for how it came to be there or an alibi.  Oswald provided neither.  His rifle was left at the scene of a shooting.  When asked about the rifle, Oswald lied to the police and denies ownership.  He could provide no alibi for the time of the crime.  His prints are on the boxes by the window from which the shots were fired.  Fired bullet casings from his rifle are found by the window from which witnesses confirm the shots were fired.  All of that evidence places Oswald on the 6th floor at the moment of the crime.  There is zero evidence that anyone planted that rifle.  Martin hasn't even made an attempt to prove such.  He just claims it is possible.  Guilty.   

[Martin Weidmann]

LOL.  How are you discounting the possibility that Elvis didn't leave the rifle using your bizarre standard?  It's theoretically possible even if there is no evidence of such.  Right?  So disprove it to my subjective satisfaction.  That is the standard you are applying to your "conspirators."  You suggest there is doubt that Oswald left his rifle at the scene by arguing that some unknown conspirator could have left it.  Even though there is zero evidence that anyone other than Oswald had access to his rifle.  The rifle belonged to Oswald.  No one other than Oswald was ever known to have possessed it.  It was found at Oswald's place of employment.  I really can't believe that anyone would struggle so mightily against the obvious conclusion that a murder weapon left at the scene of the crime implicates the owner of that weapon absent some explanation from the owner for how it came to be there or an alibi.  Oswald provided neither.  His rifle was left at the scene of a shooting.  When asked about the rifle, Oswald lied to the police and denies ownership.  He could provide no alibi for the time of the crime.  His prints are on the boxes by the window from which the shots were fired.  Fired bullet casings from his rifle are found by the window from which witnesses confirm the shots were fired.  All of that evidence places Oswald on the 6th floor at the moment of the crime.  There is zero evidence that anyone planted that rifle.  Martin hasn't even made an attempt to prove such.  He just claims it is possible.  Guilty.

LOL.  How are you discounting the possibility that Elvis didn't leave the rifle using your bizarre standard?  It's theoretically possible even if there is no evidence of such.  Right?  So disprove it to my subjective satisfaction.  That is the standard you are applying to your "conspirators."

Where you born a complete ignoramus or did something happen to you along the way? Nobody is being asked to disprove anything. You've been told that already, yet you continue with your pathetic strawman. That, in your confused mind, nobody else could have planted that rifle, doesn't justify the conclusion that Oswald left the rifle there. You need to prove he left it there. When you can't do that, there's always a possibility somebody else left it there, which is cause for reasonable doubt. That's how it works; conclusive evidence is required to eliminate reasonable doubt! Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

You suggest there is doubt that Oswald left his rifle at the scene by arguing that some unknown conspirator could have left it.

Wrong again. The doubt is caused by the fact that you can not prove that Oswald left that rifle there or even that he was the owner of that rifle. That leaves the door wide open for the possibility that somebody else brought the rifle in.

Even though there is zero evidence that anyone other than Oswald had access to his rifle.

There is zero evidence that Oswald ever had access to the rifle found at the TSBD.

The rifle belonged to Oswald.

Really? Then why can't you prove it?

A 36" rifle ordered from Klein's, with clips to attach a sling at the bottom of the wooden stock (as can be seen in the BY photos) somehow morphs into a 40" rifle (found at the TSBD) with the sling attached to a clip at the side of the wooden stock! You can't even prove it's the same rifle to begin with!

No one other than Oswald was ever known to have possessed it.

There is zero evidence that Oswald ever possessed the rifle found at the TSBD or that anybody knew that.

I really can't believe that anyone would struggle so mightily against the obvious conclusion that a murder weapon left at the scene of the crime implicates the owner of that weapon absent some explanation from the owner for how it came to be there or an alibi.  Oswald provided neither.

Maybe because he wasn't the owner?

When asked about the rifle, Oswald lied to the police and denies ownership.  He could provide no alibi for the time of the crime.  His prints are on the boxes by the window from which the shots were fired.  Fired bullet casings from his rifle are found by the window from which witnesses confirm the shots were fired. 

Wash, rinse and repeat!

All of that evidence places Oswald on the 6th floor at the moment of the crime.

No it doesn't, but I'll play along. Explain precisely how any of that proves that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired?

There is zero evidence that anyone planted that rifle.  Martin hasn't even made an attempt to prove such.  He just claims it is possible.  Guilty.

LOL.... So much weak sauce!

[Richard Smith]

Again, this is simple and obvious to any reasonable person.  The discovery of a weapon at the scene of a crime that can be linked to a specific individual is highly incriminatory of that individual's responsibility for committing the crime.  In the absence of any credible explanation from that individual as to how a weapon that belongs to them came to be at the crime scene and no credible alibi for the time of the crime, that is strong evidence linking them to the crime.  The prisons are full of such criminals who were linked to the crime by a weapon.  Of course, there is much more evidence than just the rifle that links Oswald to the crime but the rifle is the most important evidence.  Martin suggests there is doubt EVEN if the rifle belongs to Oswald.  He suggests that some unknown "conspirator" could have placed Oswald's rifle at that location.  Of course, there is no evidence of this and Martin make no effort whatsoever to provide any.  It is just theoretically possible or at least not impossible in his contrarian world.  That implies it is necessary to disprove that any other person alive on planet Earth at the time of the crime could have left the rifle to conclude that Oswald was the person who did so.  A laughable example of the lengths that a contrarian will go to defend Oswald and take the discussion down the rabbit hole.  I honestly don't think Martin believes his own nonsense.  Rather, this is just a hobby to play devil's advocate to the obvious and extend the discussion for as long as possible.  A strange psychological compulsion.

[Martin Weidmann]

Again, this is simple and obvious to any reasonable person.  The discovery of a weapon at the scene of a crime that can be linked to a specific individual is highly incriminatory of that individual's responsibility for committing the crime.  In the absence of any credible explanation from that individual as to how a weapon that belongs to them came to be at the crime scene and no credible alibi for the time of the crime, that is strong evidence linking them to the crime.  The prisons are full of such criminals who were linked to the crime by a weapon.  Of course, there is much more evidence than just the rifle that links Oswald to the crime but the rifle is the most important evidence.  Martin suggests there is doubt EVEN if the rifle belongs to Oswald.  He suggests that some unknown "conspirator" could have placed Oswald's rifle at that location.  Of course, there is no evidence of this and Martin make no effort whatsoever to provide any.  It is just theoretically possible or at least not impossible in his contrarian world.  That implies it is necessary to disprove that any other person alive on planet Earth at the time of the crime could have left the rifle to conclude that Oswald was the person who did so.  A laughable example of the lengths that a contrarian will go to defend Oswald and take the discussion down the rabbit hole.  I honestly don't think Martin believes his own nonsense.  Rather, this is just a hobby to play devil's advocate to the obvious and extend the discussion for as long as possible.  A strange psychological compulsion.

So many words and still nothing of any significance...

Answer the question;

All of that evidence places Oswald on the 6th floor at the moment of the crime.

No it doesn't, but I'll play along. Explain precisely how any of that proves that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired?

[Richard Smith]

So many words and still nothing of any significance...

Answer the question;

We have gone over this a thousand times.  You know the evidence. What psychological impulse wants to go over it again and again?  Weird.  Here it is again as outlined by the WC nearly six decades ago.  A rifle belonging to Oswald was left on the 6th floor.  The crime scene.  Oswald is the only person known to have access to this rifle.  It was stored in a garage where only he and his wife knew it was there.  His wife didn't bring it to the TSBD.  His prints are found on it.  He was photographed holding it.  His wife confirms he owned a rifle.  He carried a long bag to work that morning after making an unusual trip to the location where the rifle was stored (and later lied to the police about carrying a long bag).  Fired bullet casings from Oswald's rifle were found by the very window from which several witnesses confirm seeing a rifle/shooter at the moment of the crime (i.e. 12:30). Confirmation that Oswald's rifle was used in the crime.  Oswald has no alibi for the moment of the crime.  He provides the police with no explanation for how his rifle came to be on the 6th floor.  Instead he lies to them about ownership of any rifle to distance himself from the murder weapon.  Oswald's prints are found on the SN boxes in the window from which the shots were fired.  No other TSBD employee left prints on those boxes.  Oswald's prints were also found on the long bag next to that window from which the shots were fired.  He flees the crime scene within minutes.  Flight can be used as evidence of guilt.   In rebuttal, you have merely suggested that it is not impossible for someone to have left Oswald's rifle at the scene.   You have not provided an iota of evidence to support this point or even attempted to do so.  Just arguing that it is apparently not impossible because no one has a time machine.  Weak contrarian sauce.  Guilty.

[Martin Weidmann]

We have gone over this a thousand times.  You know the evidence. What psychological impulse wants to go over it again and again?  Weird.  Here it is again as outlined by the WC nearly six decades ago.  A rifle belonging to Oswald was left on the 6th floor.  The crime scene.  Oswald is the only person known to have access to this rifle.  It was stored in a garage where only he and his wife knew it was there.  His wife didn't bring it to the TSBD.  His prints are found on it.  He was photographed holding it.  His wife confirms he owned a rifle.  He carried a long bag to work that morning after making an unusual trip to the location where the rifle was stored (and later lied to the police about carrying a long bag).  Fired bullet casings from Oswald's rifle were found by the very window from which several witnesses confirm seeing a rifle/shooter at the moment of the crime (i.e. 12:30). Confirmation that Oswald's rifle was used in the crime.  Oswald has no alibi for the moment of the crime.  He provides the police with no explanation for how his rifle came to be on the 6th floor.  Instead he lies to them about ownership of any rifle to distance himself from the murder weapon.  Oswald's prints are found on the SN boxes in the window from which the shots were fired.  No other TSBD employee left prints on those boxes.  Oswald's prints were also found on the long bag next to that window from which the shots were fired.  He flees the crime scene within minutes.  Flight can be used as evidence of guilt.   In rebuttal, you have merely suggested that it is not impossible for someone to have left Oswald's rifle at the scene.   You have not provided an iota of evidence to support this point or even attempted to do so.  Just arguing that it is apparently not impossible because no one has a time machine.  Weak contrarian sauce.  Guilty.

Yes, we have been over this and yet still you come up with the same BS expecting a different result.

You claim Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired, but you obviously can not provide conclusive evidence for that. Which is why you keep on repeating your flawed conjecture based upon highly questional assumptions and claims that are simply not true.

The bottom line is a simple one; you can't prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. Period.

[Richard Smith]

Yes, we have been over this and yet still you come up with the same BS expecting a different result.

You claim Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired, but you obviously can not provide conclusive evidence for that. Which is why you keep on repeating your flawed conjecture based upon highly questional assumptions and claims that are simply not true.

The bottom line is a simple one; you can't prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. Period.

The "bottom line" is that I can't convince you because you are a contrarian loon who applies an impossible subjective standard of proof to the topic.  Can you understand why that is not necessary?  That is actually a rhetorical question since I realize that you are incapable of such.