And Iacoletti with a wave of his hand discards the uniquely specific retouched negatives because it doesn't have the name Hidell, while knowing full well that the name Hidell was typed onto the created faked ID, again an impossible standard of proof is required.
What exactly do you think is “uniquely specific” about them and how do you know Oswald typed “Hidell” onto them? Or even that these negatives were Oswald’s? You don’t. It’s all assumption and speculation.
What I have never seen from the CT's is a reasonable refutation of why the rifle was sent to Oswald's PO Box, they claim that the Kleins business document(Waldman 7) doesn't prove it was sent and demand that the despatcher should have been called to testify but what would he/she/they say? Are they supposed to remember someone named Hidell, absurd. And DiEugenio and others have demanded that some postal worker at the Dallas Post Office eight months later should have remembered the Hidell rifle order, another absurdity in the real world where a worker handles many orders every single day.
So basically what you’re saying is that “Waldman said so” is all you’ve got, so it has to be good enough. Even though he had nothing to do with the order and would have no idea if Oswald ever received anything. The problem can’t possibly be that your argument is weak and inconclusive. It must be an “impossible standard”.
And yet another example is the Tippit murder where Oswald shoots Tippit in front of eyewitnesses, leaves exclusively matching shells, is seen in front of more eyewitnesses leaving the scene with his revolver on full display, leaves his Jacket in a parking lot and then tries to kill more Police with the exact same weapon that left shells at the Tippit crime scene. But at every point the CT's disgustingly attempt to defend this Cop Killer.
All together now: claims aren’t evidence.
