Buell Wesley Frazier

[Michael Capasse]

The CTer/contrarian struggle with logic is painful to behold.  Here is an example.  If Oswald is placed beyond doubt at point A and then sometime later at point B there is no reason to engage in endless pedantic nitpicking to claim he couldn't have made it to point B within the known timeframe.  CTer/contrarians refuse to accept this simple concept.  They cling to pedantic, subjective interpretations of any witness testimony or circumstance that casts any doubt on this conclusion.  Again, the best proof that a thing could happen is that it DID happen.  There is no better proof.  If person X is proven beyond doubt to be in Paris on one day and in NYC on the next, there is no need to know which plane he took, who he sat next to on the plane, or his manner of dress to reach the conclusion that he made it to NYC from Paris in that timeframe.  Just because a witness might describe this person as wearing a different colored jacket than the person in NYC is rabbit hole nonsense if the totality of evidence places him there beyond all doubt.

  I'm trying to follow along on this one.
Does that mean LMR saw a rifle?

Too funny.

[Jack Nessan]

No.  As Pat Speer brilliantly illustrated, the palmprint was near the middle of the bag, and the fingerprint was near the bottom of the bag.

https://www.patspeer.com/jahs-chapter-18

No.  As Pat Speer brilliantly illustrated, the palmprint was near the middle of the bag, and the fingerprint was near the bottom of the bag.

 I read it that Pat proves what Linnie stated was correct about how LHO gripped the rifle near the top of the bag.

Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.

The bottom he carried it this way.... and it almost touched the ground.

[Martin Weidmann]

The CTer/contrarian struggle with logic is painful to behold.  Here is an example.  If Oswald is placed beyond doubt at point A and then sometime later at point B there is no reason to engage in endless pedantic nitpicking to claim he couldn't have made it to point B within the known timeframe.  CTer/contrarians refuse to accept this simple concept.  They cling to pedantic, subjective interpretations of any witness testimony or circumstance that casts any doubt on this conclusion.  Again, the best proof that a thing could happen is that it DID happen.  There is no better proof.  If person X is proven beyond doubt to be in Paris on one day and in NYC on the next, there is no need to know which plane he took, who he sat next to on the plane, or his manner of dress to reach the conclusion that he made it to NYC from Paris in that timeframe.  Just because a witness might describe this person as wearing a different colored jacket than the person in NYC is rabbit hole nonsense if the totality of evidence places him there beyond all doubt.

Classic LN dishonesty at it's finest. The Paris/NYC analogy is simply pathetic!

Oswald was not "placed beyond doubt at point A". Some time ago I've spend months waiting for you to provide a shred of evidence that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. Not only couldn't you provide such evidence, but you finally threw a tantrum and ran away from the conversation.

Not even the WC could place Oswald on the 6th floor at 12.30. They just assumed he was there and you are doing the same!

[Richard Smith]

I'm trying to follow along on this one.
Does that mean LMR saw a rifle?

Too funny.

Funny?  Yes, but not for the reason you think.  This is like describing color to someone who is color blind.  They find it difficult to "follow along."  The classic CTer inability to see the forest for all the trees. 

[Tom Sorensen]

It's when the airline timetable shows that X couldn't have made it to NYC in time to be seen the LN tosspot evidence falls apart and their hissy fits begin. Like when Oswald "escaped" from the Plaza by bus, by cab or whatever... ROFL.

[Dan O'meara]

The CTer/contrarian struggle with logic is painful to behold.  Here is an example.  If Oswald is placed beyond doubt at point A and then sometime later at point B there is no reason to engage in endless pedantic nitpicking to claim he couldn't have made it to point B within the known timeframe.  CTer/contrarians refuse to accept this simple concept.  They cling to pedantic, subjective interpretations of any witness testimony or circumstance that casts any doubt on this conclusion.  Again, the best proof that a thing could happen is that it DID happen.  There is no better proof.  If person X is proven beyond doubt to be in Paris on one day and in NYC on the next, there is no need to know which plane he took, who he sat next to on the plane, or his manner of dress to reach the conclusion that he made it to NYC from Paris in that timeframe.  Just because a witness might describe this person as wearing a different colored jacket than the person in NYC is rabbit hole nonsense if the totality of evidence places him there beyond all doubt.

Again, the best proof that a thing could happen is that it DID happen.

 
Tricky Dicky's Patented Nutter Logic.

Example #1

1] The best proof that a thing could happen is that it DID happen.
2] Oswald shot JFK.
3] That is proof that it DID happen.

Example#2

1] The best proof that a thing could happen is that it DID happen.
2] Oswald made it down from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor in time to be confronted by Baker.
3] That is proof that it DID happen.

[Richard Smith]

It's when the airline timetable shows that X couldn't have made it to NYC in time to be seen the LN tosspot evidence falls apart and their hissy fits begin. Like when Oswald "escaped" from the Plaza by bus, by cab or whatever... ROFL.

You are gaining a dim understanding of logic.  Who thought it possible?  Here it is again.  If the evidence proves that person A is in Paris in the morning and in NYC the next day because the evidence demonstrates that he is NYC, we know beyond all doubt that he made it from Paris to NYC because the evidence demonstrates that it happened.  It's not necessary to then prove what plane he took, how he was dressed etc to reach that conclusion.  The inability to know all those details with certainty does not cast doubt on that relevant conclusion. 

CTers would agonize over descriptions of the person's clothing, height, age on the plane from other passengers to suggest there is doubt.  Any discrepancy would be pounced on as creating doubt. They would argue about "chain of custody," and timelines while often applying subjective criteria to the witness testimony.  Even if there are holes in the timeline, witness contradictions, unknowns, it doesn't change the evidence that places the person in NYC.  If the person is there, that means he could and did get there even if we don't know every detail of how he got there.  However unlikely you want to believe the circumstances, if it happened, then that is definitive of the event.  It's like arguing to a person standing right in front of you holding a winning lottery ticket that the odds against winning the lottery are so great that it couldn't possibly happen.  That is lunacy.  You are looking through the wrong end of the telescope and arguing everything looks small.

[Richard Smith]

Again, the best proof that a thing could happen is that it DID happen.

 
Tricky Dicky's Patented Nutter Logic.

Example #1

1] The best proof that a thing could happen is that it DID happen.
2] Oswald shot JFK.
3] That is proof that it DID happen.

Example#2

1] The best proof that a thing could happen is that it DID happen.
2] Oswald made it down from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor in time to be confronted by Baker.
3] That is proof that it DID happen.

Try this.  If the evidence places Oswald at the Tippit murder scene, do you agree that is conclusive of whether he had the time to get there?  And as a result, we don't need to prove his every movement with a stopwatch to accept that conclusion.  I'm not asking you for an endless pedantic subjective rant on whether the evidence places him there.  I realize that some CTers may not agree that it did because they apply an impossible standard of proof, but hypothetically IF the evidence places him at the scene don't you agree that moots all the discussion about timelines and routes that would have got him there at that moment?  I don't think that is a very complex concept to understand even for you.