If I had planned the conspiracy ...

[Steve M. Galbraith]

But the evidence will never ever be "conclusive" to rabid conspiracy believers. And that's because those CTers will always insist that at least some of the evidence was planted or faked by the forever-unknown "patsy plotters".

And even if all of the Klein's rifle-purchasing documents were "original" first-generation documents (instead of merely copies from the Klein's microfilmed records), why would that fact make the rabid CTers stop crying "It's Fake!"? It wouldn't. Because it's still physically possible for even an "original" document to be a forged/fake document. And I'm fairly certain that many CTers have indeed claimed that various original documents/films/photos were phony items of evidence (despite the fact that no CTer on Earth has ever come close to proving that ANY of the evidence associated with the JFK and Tippit murders was planted or faked).

But, as we all know by now, the mere belief and/or possibility that some (or all) of the JFK/Tippit evidence was phony is more than enough to satisfy any rabid conspiracy theorist. And to hell with all those "reasonable LN inferences".

He's gone from demanding "credible evidence" to now demanding "conclusive evidence." We don't use that standard in a court of law much less a court of history. It's an absurd standard that if applied to the conspiracy advocates (who repeatedly get a pass from this person who says he has no opinion on what happened) would render them speechless.

"Conclusive" to him meaning proving it was not "possible" that the evidence was faked. That is, having to prove a negative, the same thing - prove a negative - that he admitted was a stupid standard just yesterday.

[Richard Smith]

[Martin Weidmann]

But the evidence of Lee Oswald's guilt will never ever be "conclusive" to rabid conspiracy believers. And that's because those CTers will always insist that at least some of the evidence could have conceivably been planted or faked or manufactured by the forever-unknown "patsy plotters".

And even if all of the Klein's rifle-purchasing documents were "original" first-generation documents (instead of merely copies from the Klein's microfilmed records), why would that fact make the rabid CTers stop crying "It's Fake!"? It very likely wouldn't.

Because it's still physically possible for even an "original" document to be a forged/fake document. And I'm fairly certain that many CTers over the years have indeed claimed that various original documents/films/photos are phony items of evidence (despite the fact that no CTer on Earth has ever come close to proving that ANY piece of official evidence associated with the JFK and Tippit murders is fake or phony).

But, as we all know by now, the mere belief and/or possibility that some (or all) of the JFK/Tippit evidence is phony is more than enough to satisfy the suspicions of a rabid conspiracy theorist. And to hell with all those "reasonable LN inferences".

But the evidence of Lee Oswald's guilt will never ever be "conclusive" to rabid conspiracy believers.

Oh poor David, perhaps you don't know it, but you just gave the whole game away. There is no need to concern yourself with "rabit conspiracy believers" because conclusive evidence will stand by itself. There is no need to whine about what "rabit conspiracy believers" think. The biggest problem die hard LNs like you have is that you don't like to discuss the evidence because you know it won't stand by itself. Your confirmation bias will get in the way every time. That's why you keep on complainig about those nasty people who don't simply accept your gospel!

And even if all of the Klein's rifle-purchasing documents were "original" first-generation documents (instead of merely copies from the Klein's microfilmed records), why would that fact make the rabid CTers stop crying "It's Fake!"? It very likely wouldn't.

Why do you care what "rabit CTers"say? When you have worked with handwriting experts as much as I have over the years, you would understand what the difference is between an opinion of a neutral handwriting expert, based upon original authenticated documents, and the opinion of a single FBI "expert" trying to please his boss. It was still Hoover's FBI back then, remember? And dear Edgar had already declared within 24 hours that Oswald was the lone gunman......

Because it's still physically possible for even an "original" document to be a forged/fake document.

Of course it is possible to forge or fake a document, but the likelihood of that getting by a professional expert is a hell of a lot smaller than using easily manipulated photo copies to be compared with other easily manipulated allegedly originals being "examined" by an expert who doesn't want to get into trouble with his boss.

And I'm fairly certain that many CTers over the years have indeed claimed that various original documents/films/photos are phony items of evidence (despite the fact that no CTer on Earth has ever come close to proving that ANY piece of official evidence associated with the JFK and Tippit murders is fake or phony).

What a pathetic argument to make. First of all, to demand that anybody, CT or not, prove that a document is not authentic, when the original of that same document is either buried deep in the National Archives or simply does not exist, and thus is not available for scrutiny , is not only disingenuous but also utterly dishonest. Secondly, to flip the coin, given that the original evidence is not available for examination, why is it that any LN can claim it's authentic without having been able to examine it? You demand proof from a CT but you accept without question that any authenticity claim of a LN is genuine. Could this be the "true believers" cult at work?

But, as we all know by now, the mere belief and/or possibility that some (or all) of the JFK/Tippit evidence is phony is more than enough to satisfy the suspicions of a rabid conspiracy theorist. 

Well, as we all know by now, the mere belief and/or possibility that some (or all) of the JFK/Tippit evidence is authentic is more than enough to satisfy a rabid LN theorist.
 
And to hell with all those "reasonable LN inferences".

Show me a LN and I'll show you somebody who thinks all his opinions are "reasonable LN inferences"!

[Martin Weidmann]

He's gone from demanding "credible evidence" to now demanding "conclusive evidence." We don't use that standard in a court of law much less a court of history. It's an absurd standard that if applied to the conspiracy advocates (who repeatedly get a pass from this person who says he has no opinion on what happened) would render them speechless.

"Conclusive" to him meaning proving it was not "possible" that the evidence was faked. That is, having to prove a negative, the same thing - prove a negative - that he admitted was a stupid standard just yesterday.

He's gone from demanding "credible evidence" to now demanding "conclusive evidence." We don't use that standard in a court of law much less a court of history.

What an ignorant statement to make. Conclusive means credible evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, which is exactly the standard used in a criminal court of law. The court of history is an entirely different thing. It's basically meaningless as it deals only with opinions.

"Conclusive" to him meaning proving it was not "possible" that the evidence was faked.

In what kind of fantasy world do you live? Conclusive means that it needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt that evidence is in fact authentic.

That is, having to prove a negative, the same thing - prove a negative - that he admitted was a stupid standard just yesterday.

You are cleary way out of your league. Asking for authentication of evidence is not the same as proving a negative. The biggest mistake LNs make is to assume that evidence is authentic unless proven otherwise.
In the real world it doesn't work that way!

[Martin Weidmann]

Rent free in your head...... 

[David Von Pein]

To demand that anybody, CT or not, prove that a document is not authentic, when the original of that same document is either buried deep in the National Archives or simply does not exist, and thus is not available for scrutiny, is not only disingenuous but also utterly dishonest. Secondly, to flip the coin, given that the original evidence is not available for examination, why is it that any LN can claim it's authentic without having been able to examine it? You demand proof from a CT but you accept without question that any authenticity claim of a LN is genuine. Could this be the "true believers" cult at work?

No, it's merely an attempt to put all the "rifle" evidence together.

I'm utilizing the only evidence that has EVER been available to researchers or the FBI or the Warren Commission for the rifle-purchasing records.

You know full well that Klein's didn't save the ORIGINAL documents for any of the orders it filled in 1963. When they received an order, all of the paperwork connected with that order was transferred to microfilm for easy compact storage. (You surely don't think the idea of storing orders on microfilm is "suspicious" or "conspiratorial" in some fashion, do you?)

And since I've never belonged to that popular CTer fraternity known as the "All The Evidence Looks Suspicious To Me And Therefore I Get To Believe It Was Probably Tampered With" club, and since those Klein's records for the Hidell/Oswald rifle purchase were found just exactly where they were supposed to be found---among the Klein's internal files in Chicago, Illinois---I, therefore, have absolutely no valid reason to think that those microfilmed records are anything but legitimate documents relating to the sale of one Carcano rifle by Klein's Sporting Goods to Lee H. Oswald (aka A. Hidell).

The logical "reasonable inference" here is this one....

The rifle we see Oswald holding in the 3/31/63 backyard photographs and the rifle with the serial number C2766 stamped on it that was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD on 11/22/63 is the same rifle that Klein's shipped to Oswald on March 20, 1963 (which is the exact same "C2766" rifle referred to in the Klein's documents).

Any other "inference" is just plain silly and far-fetched.

Show me a LN and I'll show you somebody who thinks all his opinions are "reasonable LN inferences"!

Well, of course! That's only natural. What would you expect, for Pete sake? Would you actually think that an LNer who believes he has a solid argument regarding a matter in dispute is going to think he has LOST the argument to a CTer (who is, after all, a person who has nothing but his imagination and speculation about tons of "fake evidence" to work with)??!

Is your middle initial D, Martin? (As in Duh!)

And the merry-go-round continues to grind away....

[Martin Weidmann]

No, it's merely common sense at work. I'm utilizing the only evidence that has EVER been available to researchers or the FBI or the WC for the rifle-purchasing records.

You know full well that Klein's didn't save the ORIGINAL documents for any of the orders it filled in 1963. When they received an order, all of the paperwork connected with that order was transferred to microfilm for easy compact storage. (You surely don't think the idea of storing orders on microfilm is "suspicious" or "conspiratorial" in some fashion, do you?)

And since I've never belonged to that popular CTer fraternity known as the "All The Evidence Looks Suspicious To Me And Therefore I Get To Believe It Was Probably Tampered With" club, and since those Klein's records for the Hidell/Oswald rifle purchase were positively found just exactly where they were supposed to be found---among the Klein's internal files in Chicago, Illinois---I, therefore, have absolutely no good or valid reason to think that those microfilmed records are anything but legitimate documents relating to the March 1963 sale of one Carcano rifle by Klein's Sporting Goods to Lee H. Oswald (aka A. Hidell).


Well, of course! That's only natural. What would you expect, for Pete sake? Would you actually think that an LNer who believes he has a solid argument regarding a matter in dispute is going to think he has LOST the argument to a CTer (who is, after all, a person who has nothing but his imagination and speculation about tons of "fake evidence" to work with)??!

Is your middle initial D, Martin? (As in Duh!)

And the merry-go-round continues to grind away....

No, it's merely common sense at work.

Common sense is an opinion. It has nothing to do with authenticated conclusive evidence. Common sense is in fact frequently used as a substitute for a total lack of credible evidence.

I'm utilizing the only evidence that has EVER been available to researchers or the FBI or the WC for the rifle-purchasing records.

So am I, so how come we have not reached the same conclusion?

You know full well that Klein's didn't save the ORIGINAL documents for any of the orders it filled in 1963. When they received an order, all of the paperwork connected with that order was transferred to microfilm for easy compact storage. (You surely don't think the idea of storing orders on microfilm is "suspicious" or "conspiratorial" in some fashion, do you?)

No, the way Klein's normally used to store the orders on microfilm is not suspicious or conspiratorial at all, but I never claimed that Klein's forged or falsified any document.

And since I've never belonged to that popular CTer fraternity known as the "All The Evidence Looks Suspicious To Me And Therefore I Get To Believe It Was Probably Tampered With" club,

No, you belong and have always belonged to the "Oswald did it alone no matter that the evidence doesn't support that conclusion" club

and since those Klein's records for the Hidell/Oswald rifle purchase were positively found just exactly where they were supposed to be found---among the Klein's internal files in Chicago, Illinois---I, therefore, have absolutely no good or valid reason to think that those microfilmed records are anything but legitimate documents relating to the March 1963 sale of one Carcano rifle by Klein's Sporting Goods to Lee H. Oswald (aka A. Hidell).

Well, that's where we part ways, because there are many ways to manipulate evidence. Let's for the sake of argument say that Oswald did in fact write the Hidell order form, but he was manipulated in doing so? Ever thought about that possibility, or do you simply dismiss it as an impossibility?

Well, of course! That's only natural. What would you expect, for Pete sake? Would you actually think that an LNer who believes he has a solid argument regarding a matter in dispute is going to think he has LOST the argument to a CTer (who is, after all, a person who has nothing but his imagination and speculation about tons of "fake evidence" to work with)??!

This is exactly why two worlds will never meet. Niel deGrasse Tyson once said; what if you know just enough about a subject to think you are right, but not enough about that subject to know you are wrong!

Let's just take one example; the Backyard photos. I believe they are authentic, as I am sure you do as well, but for you they somehow prove that Oswald owned a Carcano rifle in March 1963, and for me they only prove that Oswald was photographed holding a rifle. Now tell me, why are you right and I am wrong?

[Tom Mahon]

Galbraith: You have literally written hundreds if not thousands of posts here demanding that lone assassin believers PROVE that the evidence against Oswald wasn't faked or planted.

Weidmann: I have questioned the evidence and asked for authentication. That's not the same as asking for proof that the evidence wasn't faked or planted.

My question: What's your definition of "authentication" in the context of the evidence against Oswald?