CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?

[Richard Smith]

So where did the curtain rods go? He told the Frazier he brought in curtain rods, Frazier  told the cops, they looked and found nothing. He had no curtain rods on the bus or in the cab.

How is that losing the plot? He had his rifle at the Paines. He stayed there the night before. It wasn't there in the afternoon when they checked. It was found in the TSBD.

Martin/Roger doesn't believe it is necessary to answer logical questions like that.  They apply an impossible standard of proof to the evidence to create false doubt that X didn't happen.  Like a sleazy defense attorney who knows his client is stone cold guilty grasping at any straw.   The rest of us know that if X didn't happen then something like Y or Z must have happened instead but there is absolutely no evidence of Y or Z.  Certainly no evidence that would satisfy the impossible standard Martin/Roger applies to proving X.  But that is dismissed out of hand by Martin/Roger as not important because he has no answer.  Nothing to see there.  And on and on it goes down the rabbit hole. No event in human history could ever be proven using Martin/Roger's nutty standard of proof.  It's just a game to avoid checkmate.  Martin/Roger knows Oswald is stone cold guilty.  He is probably more convinced of it than anyone.  Playing the contrarian brings attention.

[Martin Weidmann]

Martin/Roger doesn't believe it is necessary to answer logical questions like that.  They apply an impossible standard of proof to the evidence to create false doubt that X didn't happen.  Like a sleazy defense attorney who knows his client is stone cold guilty grasping at any straw.   The rest of us know that if X didn't happen then something like Y or Z must have happened instead but there is absolutely no evidence of Y or Z.  Certainly no evidence that would satisfy the impossible standard Martin/Roger applies to proving X.  But that is dismissed out of hand by Martin/Roger as not important because he has no answer.  Nothing to see there.  And on and on it goes down the rabbit hole. No event in human history could ever be proven using Martin/Roger's nutty standard of proof.  It's just a game to avoid checkmate.  Martin/Roger knows Oswald is stone cold guilty.  He is probably more convinced of it than anyone.  Playing the contrarian brings attention.

Is there any significance to your ramblings?

Btw, who needs evidence when you know somebody is guilty? That is basically what you are saying, isn't it?

[Richard Smith]

Is there any significance to your ramblings?

Not to you Roger.   It involves the application of logic to the facts.

[Martin Weidmann]

Not to you Roger.   It involves the application of logic to the facts.

More delusional BS.

The irony is that one first needs to establish what the facts are before any logic can be applied to them. In your world, so-called "logic" creates the "facts" you need to support your predetermined conclusion. Just keep on placing the cart before the horse......

[John Iacoletti]

Like a sleazy prosecuting attorney, "Richard" thinks that all you have to do is call it "Oswald's rifle", and *poof* it becomes Oswald's rifle.  Because "logic".

[Richard Smith]

More delusional BS.

The irony is that one first needs to establish what the facts are before any logic can be applied to them. In your world, so-called "logic" creates the "facts" you need to support your predetermined conclusion. Just keep on placing the cart before the horse......

No one can establish facts in your fantasy world.  That is the entire point.  You apply an impossible standard of proof and then proclaim there is false doubt.  Then dismiss whether the implications of your doubts have any validity because there is zero evidence to support any alternative scenario.  The sole goal is to create doubt regarding any evidence of Oswald's guilt no matter how ludicrous and unsupported the alternative.  It is lazy, absurd, and pointless. 

[John Iacoletti]

No one can establish facts in your fantasy world.  That is the entire point.  You apply an impossible standard of proof and then proclaim there is false doubt.  Then dismiss whether the implications of your doubts have any validity because there is zero evidence to support any alternative scenario.  The sole goal is to create doubt regarding any evidence of Oswald's guilt no matter how ludicrous and unsupported the alternative.  It is lazy, absurd, and pointless.

It's only "impossible" to you, because you want your "logic" (read: conjecture) to be sufficient.  Marina saw a part of a wooden stock wrapped up in a rolled up and tied blanket in late September / early October that she took to be a rifle, therefore it was a Mannlicher Carcano rifle with serial number C2766 and it was picked up by Oswald on November 21 and brought to the TSBD in a brown paper package.

Not because of evidence, but because of "logic".