The preponderance of the evidence

[John Iacoletti]

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the adhesive matter is not as described?

So you?re more than willing to accept a claim made with no supporting evidence until somebody proves the claim false?

I have an invisible pet dragon named Charles. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that he is not as I describe?

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

Charles, I?ve asked this question of the truthers for some 50 years.  They NEVER answer.  They can?t. Not one piece of hard, credible evidence for conspiracy exists.  They don?t care.  They each have their pet theory.  The best arguments are between the kooks themselves. Yet, history should be debated, not argued. They cannot debate it.  They have no evidence.

Hey good buddy, it's time to wake up and remember that you claim Oswald is guilty

" I?ve asked this question of the truthers for some 50 years.  They NEVER answer.  They can?t. Not one piece of hard, credible evidence for conspiracy exists."


It is too bad you happen to have this idea that LHO is responsible. You would think after over a half a century you and your group of storytellers really need to question your own failed ideas.
When you make a claim it is up to you to prove it, but of course, in this case, you can't.

Let me leave you with this wonderful quote that you should learn from because it describes you, the WC and all the lazy ideas. Plus I think you have heard it before. I know you'll agree.

 "The best arguments are between the kooks themselves. Yet, history should be debated, not argued. They cannot debate it.  They have no evidence."

[Martin Weidmann]

You responded but failed to address the question.

No.. like a true LN you simply did not like the implication

[Alan Ford]

So you?re more than willing to accept a claim made with no supporting evidence until somebody proves the claim false?

I have an invisible pet dragon named Charles. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that he is not as I describe?

Not to preempt Mr Collins's response, Mr Iacoletti, but I wish to state that, having considered your claim in an honest, fair and objective manner, and with an open mind, I have come to the conclusion that you are a very cruel man to keep an invisible dragon as a domestic pet. For shame, sir!

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

Many years ago I began pursuing my interest in the JFK assassination conspiracy theories by reading quite a few books by, you guessed it, conspiracy theorists. For a long time I was convinced that there just HAD to be a conspiracy. But there wasn't any conspiracy theory that had any credible evidence to support it. All there seemed to be was conjecture and innuendo. One book would claim that LBJ was behind the assassination, another book would claim JEH was the mastermind, and so on. I learned way more than I wanted to know about LBJ, JEH, the oil tycoons, etc. But no credible evidence that would support any of the theories. I was left with a big question mark asking which conspiracy theory was the right one. One day I decided to start fresh with an open mind. I decided that learning more about the evidence that the official investigation turned up was a good starting point. Because all I had learned about the evidence from all the conspiracy books was biased against the official investigation's findings and tried to discredit them. A look at the other side of the controversy (with an open mind) seemed to be the next logical step in my pursuit to know more. So I read the official report and a few books from authors who supported it. What I found was that the preponderance of the evidence points directly at LHO. This was more than just the conjecture and innuendo that I was used to seeing. The preponderance of the evidence is actually overwhelming. The arguments that try to discredit the evidence no longer made sense, but I still try to look for any evidence of a conspiracy with an open mind. That is why I continue to show up here from time to time.

You either believe LHO is responsible or you don't? 

The preponderance of the evidence

You can not apply the burden of proof, a preponderance of the evidence  to what is a criminal case.  Oswald cannot be found kind of guilty this is not a civil case

[Charles Collins]

You either believe LHO is responsible or you don't? 

The preponderance of the evidence

You can not apply the burden of proof, a preponderance of the evidence  to what is a criminal case.  Oswald cannot be found kind of guilty this is not a civil case

to what is a criminal case

There will never be a criminal case brought against LHO. Jack Ruby made sure of that.

[Charles Collins]

A partial palm print on an index card was matched to Oswald, and this convinces you of what, exactly?

We are discussing a lack of evidence of LHO being a patsy. Are you trying to change the subject?