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

[John Iacoletti]

Meanwhile, they ask for evidence, in fact they say they are here to discuss the evidence; but when the evidence of Oswald's guilt is provided they dismiss it as "corrupt".

99% of the so-called “evidence of Oswald’s guilt” is not. And it’s not our fault that the little that remains is questionable or tainted in some way.

You rely on it because you want to rely on it — nothing more.

[Richard Smith]

Of all your weak contrarian CTer arguments, the claim that the JFK assassination has not been extensively investigated is among the most delusional.

And where exactly did I say that the investigation hasn't been extensive? I won't wait for the answer, because I never said that and you, as usual, made it up.

And here we are six decades later with no doubt of Oswald's guilt or the involvement of anyone else.

Are you for real? There has been doubt about Oswald's guilt from day one and you and your ilk have never been able to change that. Like it or not, the majority of the people has and probably will always have reasonable doubts about what happened on 11/22/63.

But you are crying a river about a lack of investigation.  LOL.

Pathetic. It's pretty obvious that you can't show me where I can find the information I asked for in the WC report. The reason is of course that it isn't there. I suppose they were too busy to investigate Oswald's pubic hair. LOL

Again, your subjective contrarian claim that there is "doubt" is not relevant because it is contrived by applying an impossible standard of proof to Oswald's guilt.  Multiple investigations have concluded that Oswald was the assassin.  That conclusion is supported by the evidence making it a fact.  There is no credible evidence of the involvement of anyone else.  Certainly none has been provided by you.  You limit yourself to nitpicking the evidence against Oswald as though the void left by any claim that he wasn't the assassin is not relevant to the analysis.  Just a great mystery never to be addressed because you have some dim realization that if any of your nonsense were valid the resulting counternarrative that explains the known facts and evidence would be absurd.  You certainly don't want to address any of the implications of your looney claims for good reason.

[Martin Weidmann]

Again, your subjective contrarian claim that there is "doubt" is not relevant because it is contrived by applying an impossible standard of proof to Oswald's guilt.  Multiple investigations have concluded that Oswald was the assassin.  That conclusion is supported by the evidence making it a fact.  There is no credible evidence of the involvement of anyone else.  Certainly none has been provided by you.  You limit yourself to nitpicking the evidence against Oswald as though the void left by any claim that he wasn't the assassin is not relevant to the analysis.  Just a great mystery never to be addressed because you have some dim realization that if any of your nonsense were valid the resulting counternarrative that explains the known facts and evidence would be absurd.  You certainly don't want to address any of the implications of your looney claims for good reason.

Again, your subjective contrarian claim that there is "doubt" is not relevant because it is contrived by applying an impossible standard of proof to Oswald's guilt. 

Sorry, but your biased opinion that there isn't doubt isn't relevant.

Btw that's one hell of an argument; it's like a prosecutor saying to a juror; "sorry but your standard of proof is too high for my weak evidence to meet", so your opinion is irrelevant. Take that one into any court and see what happens. It's the perfect illustration of just how weak the case against Oswald really is.

Multiple investigations have concluded that Oswald was the assassin.

Hilarious. There has been one main investigation where the evidence was selected. All other "investigations" worked with that same evidence. Over time sufficient additional information has been made public to conclude that all the investigations were flawed.

That conclusion is supported by the evidence making it a fact.

So, if that's true, why can't you provide the evidence that shows that Oswald was on the 6th floor at the time of the shots and came down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot? If, as you foolishly claim, the conclusion that Oswald was the assassin is supported by evidence, it should be easy for you to provide that evidence. The fact that you haven't been able to do so, for some 4 months now, is all the confirmation required to expose your hollow claims as utter BS. The WC report is full with claims that are not supported by the evidence!

[Richard Smith]

Again, your subjective contrarian claim that there is "doubt" is not relevant because it is contrived by applying an impossible standard of proof to Oswald's guilt. 

Sorry, but your biased opinion that there isn't doubt isn't relevant.

Btw that's one hell of an argument; it's like a prosecutor saying to a juror; "sorry but your standard of proof is too high for my weak evidence to meet", so your opinion is irrelevant. Take that one into any court and see what happens.

Multiple investigations have concluded that Oswald was the assassin.

Hilarious. There has been one main investigation where the evidence was selected. All other "investigations" worked with that same evidence. Over time sufficient additional information has been made public to conclude that all the investigations were flawed.

That conclusion is supported by the evidence making it a fact.

So, if that's true, why can't you provide the evidence that shows that Oswald was on the 6th floor at the time of the shots and came down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot? If, as you foolishly claim, the conclusion that Oswald was the assassin is supported by evidence, it should be easy for you to provide that evidence. The fact that you haven't been able to do so, for some 4 months now, is all the confirmation required to expose your hollow claims as utter BS. The WC report is full with claims that are not supported by the evidence!

When the time machine is invented, we can all go back to 1963 to satisfy Martin's subjective, contrarian impossible standard of proof since all we have now is the evidence.  You also appear very confused about whether you are having a discussion about the case on an Internet forum or defending a (guilty) client in a criminal trial subject to the rules and presumptions which govern such trials. 

[Martin Weidmann]

When the time machine is invented, we can all go back to 1963 to satisfy Martin's subjective, contrarian impossible standard of proof since all we have now is the evidence.  You also appear very confused about whether you are having a discussion about the case on an Internet forum or defending a (guilty) client in a criminal trial subject to the rules and presumptions which govern such trials.

When the time machine is invented, we can all go back to 1963 to satisfy Martin's subjective, contrarian impossible standard of proof since all we have now is the evidence.

You mean the evidence that is so extremely weak it can't even meet any standard of proof?

You also appear very confused about whether you are having a discussion about the case on an Internet forum or defending a (guilty) client in a criminal trial subject to the rules and presumptions which govern such trials.

There is no confusion on my part. On your part, that's another matter. You seem to confuse asking questions and scrutinizing evidence on a public forum as "defending a (guilty) client". I'm not defending anybody. If and when you show me the evidence that Oswald is guilty, I will gladly accept that, but given the fact that you have proven to be unable to provide any conclusive evidence for your claims and can't defend or explain the conclusions of the WC either, I seriously doubt we will ever get to such a conclusion.

I am also not the one who is confused about "having a discussion about the case", as there is no such discussion. There is one person asking questions and asking for evidence and another person (that would be you) who runs away from any kind of discussion as fast as he can.

The bottom line is (and has been the same since 1963) a simple one; when you claim somebody committed two murders you will have to provide the evidence to prove it. It doesn't matter if that's in a court of law or the court of public opinion. You are making claims that you can not support with actual evidence and your "believe it because the WC said so" is just about the most pathetic part of it.

It also makes me wonder why you are active on this board. You clearly do not want to discuss the case against Oswald or answer questions and present evidence.

Your entire position on this board could have been dealt with in one single post, saying: "I believe the WC report and don't want to discuss it"

So the question needs to be asked again; what makes you return to the forum day after day writing meaningless posts about things you don't want to discuss?

[Jon Banks]

It's always 1964 for the conspiracists. Thus the mantra of "the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission..." All of the subsequent investigations - by the government or by the media and others - are dismissed or ignored.

Meanwhile, they ask for evidence, in fact they say they are here to discuss the evidence; but when the evidence of Oswald's guilt is provided they dismiss it as "corrupt". Why it is corrupt? Because they say the "chain of evidence" is insufficient or the DPD was "dirty" and they "possibly" could have manufactured/falsified it. This possibility *alone* is sufficient to dismiss it.

So, if the "chain of custody" is sufficient they wave away that evidence as "possibly" faked. But if the evidence is real, they then say the "chain of custody" for it was broken and its not reliable. In either case they dismiss it. Every time. Except, of course, for the conspiracy claims. Someone can say Ruth Paine was the mastermind behind the framing of Oswald and they are silent. Nowhere to be found.

So where can you go with this? It's an endless repetition of denial on their part.

If you feel that the case that Oswald alone killed JFK is conclusive beyond any reasonable doubt in spite of all the problems with the evidence, you're entitled to your own opinion.

What I don't understand is your expectation that others should overlook the glaring problems with the evidence and investigations.

[Bill Chapman]

If you feel that the case that Oswald alone killed JFK is conclusive beyond any reasonable doubt in spite of all the problems with the evidence, you're entitled to your own opinion.

What I don't understand is your expectation that others should overlook the glaring problems with the evidence and investigations.

'overlook the glaring problems with the evidence and investigations'
_are you going to tell us soon? Can't wait... No, really