USPS workers screwing things up i.e..LHO receiving c2766

[Richard Smith]

My "conclusion" was in the form of a simple question to Martin and referenced documents, photos, prints, witness testimony etc. 

Whoever said anything about your "conclusion"?

The type of material commonly known as "evidence."

And the type question that's commonly known as a loaded question

Even more so as you have already indicated the conclusion you want to read;

All of that is evidence or collectively a mountain of evidence.  There is nothing speculative about whether it is sufficient to prove that Oswald ordered and was sent a specific MC rifle (the same one found on the 6th floor with the same serial number).  If it is genuine, then it demonstrates that Oswald ordered and received a specific rifle.  The only alternative is that it is all faked.  So which is it?

Which of course is the usual hyperbole that is in fact nothing more than your opinion.

I asked a simple, straightforward question as to whether you accepted the evidence linking Oswald to the rifle was genuine or not.  And you responded that was somehow a "loaded" question.  Ridiculous.  You have proven the larger point that it is a waste of time to discuss this case with a contrarian who takes issue with reaching any conclusions.  The documents, prints, photos, and witness testimony exist.  They are part of the record.  Those are the kinds of items commonly referred to as evidence.  Not opinions or speculation.  If genuine, then they make a convincing case that Oswald ordered and received a specific MC rifle from Klein's.  You can't have it both ways suggesting that the evidence is somehow lacking to reach conclusions but failing to acknowledge the reasons for your skepticism (i.e. all this evidence must be the product of fakery from a variety of sources).  The question is only "loaded" if you don't like the answer and want to avoid it (i.e. having it both ways in questioning the conclusions based upon evidence but refusing to acknowledge the implications of widespread fakery).

[Walt Cakebread]

If  the 5 foot 9 inch, Lee Oswald had placed the carcano on the floor beneath the pallet stacked with boxes of books he would have had to have laid down on top of the rows of boxes.   The rifle was found by Deputy Boone 15 feet 4 inches south of the north wall or about 5 feet south of the aisle at the top of the stairs.   Lee Oswald could not have reached across that 5 foot span and placed the rifle down on the floor behind boxes that were stacked four feet high.

The rifle was 8 feet south of the top of the stairs.... Not three feet.  This one FACT destroys the imaginary theory concocted by the DPD and the FBI.

[Martin Weidmann]

Point out where any LNer has complained about questions being asked.
Perhaps most CTer questions being asked are seen by LNers as just plain dumb, adolescent & pointless

CTer blanket dismissal (see what I did there? Another twofer*) of all evidence as being faked, planted, or altered is not going garner any respect from us sheeple.

Still waiting for your shooter & conspiracy to show up
What... too soon?

*The hits just keep on comin'


Bill Chapman
Hunter of Trolls

Point out where any LNer has complained about questions being asked.

No need... it's all over this board. You and Richard Smith are by far the worst. Rather than answering questions to defend your opinion, you and Richard prefer to ridicule and attack anybody who disagrees with you or simply is not convinced by your claims. The recently created thread "Why do some people believe in conspiracy theories?" is the best example of that pathetic behaviour.

Perhaps most CTer questions being asked are seen by LNers as just plain dumb, adolescent & pointless

Which would make those LNs to be extremely arrogant and pathetic at the same time as there is no such thing as a dumb question. The answer to a question could however be extremely dumb, which may well be the reason why LNs refuse to answer so many questions.

Besides, what's the point of joining a forum as this if you don't want or can't participate in the debate?

CTer blanket dismissal (see what I did there? Another twofer*) of all evidence as being faked, planted, or altered is not going garner any respect from us sheeple.

Classic strawman crap! And I don't need the respect of "sheeple".... answers to my questions will do nicely, but they are - as usual - in short supply.

[Martin Weidmann]

I asked a simple, straightforward question as to whether you accepted the evidence linking Oswald to the rifle was genuine or not.  And you responded that was somehow a "loaded" question.  Ridiculous.  You have proven the larger point that it is a waste of time to discuss this case with a contrarian who takes issue with reaching any conclusions.  The documents, prints, photos, and witness testimony exist.  They are part of the record.  Those are the kinds of items commonly referred to as evidence.  Not opinions or speculation.  If genuine, then they make a convincing case that Oswald ordered and received a specific MC rifle from Klein's.  You can't have it both ways suggesting that the evidence is somehow lacking to reach conclusions but failing to acknowledge the reasons for your skepticism (i.e. all this evidence must be the product of fakery from a variety of sources).  The question is only "loaded" if you don't like the answer and want to avoid it (i.e. having it both ways in questioning the conclusions based upon evidence but refusing to acknowledge the implications of widespread fakery).

As per usual your rant is all over the place?.

Asking a simple straightforward question becomes asking a loaded question when you start adding all sorts of claims with the intention of leading to the answer that you want.

In your black and white world there is evidence or there isn't. In my world, there is a grey area where all sorts of variables come into play which need to be resolved before it can be claimed that a particular piece of evidence actually supports a particular conclusion. You just ignore that?. to you a photo of Oswald holding a rifle means that he bought and owned that rifle when in fact it could have been merely a prop in some sort of manipulated scheme. And then there are of course those akward questions resulting from such evidence that you can't or don't want to answer, like: Can you explain the involvement of George DeMohrenschildt and Michael Paine with the BY photos?

[John Iacoletti]

rather than enquire

There you go again
The CT cop-out 'just asking questions' thing.

Also known as JAQing off: Making outrageous claims and then avoiding having to prove anything by claiming you are 'just asking questions'. Highly popular amongst consiracy-mongers of all stripes.

We can add ?JAQing off? to the ever-growing list of terms that Chapman uses but doesn?t understand.

But what ?outrageous claims? did Martin make? Be specific.

[John Iacoletti]

I asked a simple, straightforward question as to whether you accepted the evidence linking Oswald to the rifle was genuine or not.  And you responded that was somehow a "loaded" question.  Ridiculous.

It?s absolutely a loaded question. Implicit in your question is the assumption that the evidence actually links Oswald to that specific rifle.

By the way, what ?prints on the rifle?? What photos? What witness testimony?

[Richard Smith]

Very insightful that the contrarian brothers believe it is a loaded question to ask whether the evidence linking Oswald to the rifle is genuine or not.  It is a loaded question to them because they want to have it both ways.  Suggesting there is doubt that Oswald ordered and was sent a specific rifle (as the documentation confirms) but implicitly recognizing the absurdity that all this evidence is the product of fakery.  So they want to have it both ways.  Expressing doubt as to the evidence but without the corresponding logical obligation of owning the consequences of the evidence being faked.   It is a dishonest and intellectually lazy approach to the case.  Crooked John asks "what prints".  He clearly know what prints are being discussed and by asking such a stupid question implies that he believes that Oswald's prints on the rifle must be the product of fakery or lies.  But then he will deny that.   And round and round we go down the rabbit hole. 

I presented a simple premise.  If the evidence linking Oswald to the rifle is genuine, then it presents a convincing case that he ordered and then was sent a MC rifle with a specific serial number.  The same one found on the 6th floor.  You don't have to accept the logical inference from that conclusion that Oswald was the assassin as Martin erroneously suggests to avoid answering but is impossible to square accepting the evidence that Oswald was sent a MC rifle as being genuine with any doubt about his possession of this rifle.  If Oswald filled out the order form and Klein's sent a MC rifle to his PO Box as the documentation confirms, then it seems pretty obvious that the rifle is linked directly to Oswald.  Consistent with photos and prints linking him to that same rifle.  So you have to make a decision here to be honest.  Is the documentation and evidence linking Oswald to the rifle genuine or forged?  If genuine, then the MC rifle is conclusively linked to Oswald.  Only if you are contending it is faked can you logically argue that there is no link to Oswald.  But dishonest contrarians want to have it both ways.  Which is why they believe it is a loaded question to own the consequences of their dishonest approach and are dancing like circus monkeys here to explain why they won't answer a very basic question.