The preponderance of the evidence

[Martin Weidmann]

I believe that Oswald bought a revolver from Seaport Traders, therefore it was a lie when he said he bought one in Fort Worth."

You're CT-IOWing again.

Omitting information that affects outcomes is tantamount to lying.

And tell us where in Fort Worth Dirty Harvey bought a revolver.
Omitting that information strips investigators of the opportunity-to-confirm.

Hey stupid, according to the reports Oswald told the interrogators he bought the revolver in Forth Worth, but it seems nobody was listening since they apparently didn't even bother to ask him where exactly.

On the other hand, because of a dry cleaning label they investigated hunderds of outlets in the greater Dallas and New Orleans areas. It seems the jacket was more important to them than the revolver.

[Charles Collins]

Why should I answer your questions when you refuse to answer mine?

The questions you asked have been argued here and elsewhere so many times before. I indicated I didn?t want to go there again.

My question was trying to find out if there is a way to examine the evidence that I am unaware of.

[Martin Weidmann]

The questions you asked have been argued here and elsewhere so many times before. I indicated I didn?t want to go there again.

My question was trying to find out if there is a way to examine the evidence that I am unaware of.

My question was trying to find out if there is a way to examine the evidence that I am unaware of.

That's easy. Have really an open mind, examine the actual evidence and ignore the spin from either side around it.

Try to determine what it really means or says without a predetermined mind set.

On this forum, by far the easiest way of getting to the true substance is play devil's advocate, challenge the evidence and learn how well defended the point is by those who rely upon it to make their (biast) case.

 

[Bill Chapman]

Hey stupid, according to the reports Oswald told the interrogators he bought the revolver in Forth Worth, but it seems nobody was listening since they apparently didn't even bother to ask him where exactly.

On the other hand, because of a dry cleaning label they investigated hunderds of outlets in the greater Dallas and New Orleans areas. It seems the jacket was more important to them than the revolver.

Cite your 'according-to' reports

Other 'according-to' reports have Oswald telling interrogators (regarding his job search in Dallas) that they are welcome to check out those locations in said job search. That sets a precedent in Oswald's willingness/unwillingness to volunteer information, true or otherwise.

Another 'according-to' reports that Oswald refused to enlighten interrogators as to the actual Fort Worth location purchase, IMS.

An innocent man in Oswald's position would more-than-likely show no little eagerness in giving complete information regarding the firearm considered instrumental in the Tippit murder.

http://www.maebrussell.com/Mae%20Brussell%20Articles/Last%20Words%20of%20Lee%20Oswald.html

[Martin Weidmann]

Cite your 'according-to' reports

Other 'according-to' reports have Oswald telling interrogators (regarding his job search in Dallas) that they are welcome to check out those locations in said job search. That sets a precedent in Oswald's willingness/unwillingness to volunteer information, true or otherwise.

Another 'according-to' reports that Oswald refused to enlighten interrogators as to the actual Fort Worth location purchase, IMS.

An innocent man in Oswald's position would more-than-likely show no little eagerness in giving complete information regarding a firearm suspected of being used in a murder.

http://www.maebrussell.com/Mae%20Brussell%20Articles/Last%20Words%20of%20Lee%20Oswald.html

So, you rely on a website that is presenting a possible scenario of what Oswald could have said without actually knowing with any kind of certainty that these words were actually spoken by him. Sorry, not worth my time

Fritz reported that Oswald told him he bought his revolver in Fort Worth.

[John Iacoletti]

So, you rely on a website that is presenting a possible scenario of what Oswald could have said without actually knowing with any kind of certainty that these words were actually spoken by him. Sorry, not worth my time

Of course he's relying on that.

There's nothing in Fritz's report that says that Oswald refused to tell him where he purchased a revolver.

[Jack Trojan]

The questions you asked have been argued here and elsewhere so many times before. I indicated I didn?t want to go there again.

But don't you have to explain why you believe all the arguments lead to a preponderance of the evidence?  Otherwise, who gives a rat's arse what your gut tells you?

My question was trying to find out if there is a way to examine the evidence that I am unaware of.

Like all LNers, your problem is you don't know how to evaluate evidence to reach a logical conclusion. Critical thinking is something you must learn before you debate or you wind up looking like Chapman the Clown who is bereft of critical thinking skills and toes the LNer party line with ad homs, obfuscation and denial. Is this the club you want to join?

Besides, CTs don't have to prove Oswald was innocent or a patsy. Like the WC, LNers have to provide conclusive evidence that Oswald was a lone nut assassin and not part of a conspiracy. You would think after 56 years at least 1 of you would have come up with something definitive by now. You LNers don't understand that Oswald wasn't a lone nut by default. Your circumstantial evidence doesn't even meet the legal criteria for proof let alone a logical proof. You have set the bar impossibly high for yourselves by insisting that Oswald was a lone nut killer and not a patsy. Too bad for you that every single piece of evidence in the JFK assassination fits a coup d'etat with Oswald as the designated patsy. It all fits together like a glove (not OJ's), the LNer hypothesis, not so much.