The preponderance of the evidence

[Martin Weidmann]

The WC conclusions are what we have. It is your prerogative to disagree with them. At one time I did also.

The WC conclusions are merely an opinion. Their entire case is nothing more than a theory based on questionable evidence that was never challenged

The WCR failed completely to convince me that the conclusions were correct.

[Charles Collins]

I made no such claim. I am merely stating that the possibility that it did happen can not be ruled out.

In the WC case against Oswald there a plenty of claims for which there either is no credible evidence, or - even worse - credible evidence that does not support the claim is simply dismissed. Yet, you accept the case against Oswald. Why the double standard?

As to the item discussed, there also is no credible evidence that it didn't happen. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Given the multitude of instances where there has been questional handling of physical evidence, a circumstantial case of evidence manipulation can be made, but we have already established that you are not interested in that and just call it "conjecture and innuendo"

So you are trying to get me to argue against some hypothetical sinister activity that you have no credible evidence of and don?t claim actually happened. And you wonder why I told you up front that I wasn?t interested in arguing the same old arguments that have been argued for over 55 years now.

[Charles Collins]

The WC conclusions are merely an opinion. Their entire case is nothing more than a theory based on questionable evidence that was never challenged

The WCR failed completely to convince me that the conclusions were correct.

It is fine to question the evidence. I have too.

[John Iacoletti]

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

A partial palm print that nobody knew about that just shows up a week later on an index card is evidence of framing.

[John Iacoletti]

Does your invisible dragon help you with your invisible evidence?

Says the guy who believes in invisible ?irregularities?.

[John Iacoletti]

The implication suggests that something sinister could have happened with this item. No credible evidence that it did happen. Are you claiming that something sinister DID happen?

There?s that magic word ?credible? again that means whatever you want it to mean.

I can do that too:  no credible evidence that Oswald was the one who shot Kennedy.

[John Iacoletti]

The WC conclusions are what we have. It is your prerogative to disagree with them. At one time I did also.

Lots of people have made conclusions. What?s so special about the WC ones?

But the WC conclusions haven?t changed, so what specifically made you stop disagreeing?