CT's, in court how would you defend Oswald?

[Bill Chapman]

All that takes is you being unable to prove your case.

I wonder who needs to prove their case to a crazed contrarian interested in nothing beyond playing games on the semantics seesaw...

[Thomas Graves]

It's a bizarre form of "logic" that CTers apply to this case.  They suggest here that because no one "saw" Oswald carry a rifle into the TSBD that somehow creates doubt of the fact (i.e. there is "no evidence whatsoever" LOL!).  But the rifle was wrapped in a paper bag.  So unless a witness had x-ray vision no one could actually see the contents of the bag.  This entirely ignores the totality of evidence such as the serial number of the rifle sent to Oswald's PO Box matching the one found in the TSBD.  The fact that Oswald was seen carrying a long bag that can't otherwise be accounted for in anyway except as containing the rifle.  The fact that Oswald lied about owing a rifle, there are pictures of him holding it, and his wife confirmed he owned and stored a rifle in the Paine's garage.  It's a slam dunk of evidence rebutted only by the ridiculous argument that because no one can see through paper there is somehow doubt of the matter.  Absurd and a great example of the dishonest contrarian approach.  Focus on one aspect of the evidence as though removed from the totality of evidence.  Frame the discussion in terms of an impossible standard of proof (i.e. no one can see through paper).  From this imply there is false doubt.  Repeat endlessly.

Richard,

Not only that, but no witness, with or without the required x-ray vision, came forward to say he or she had watched Oswald like a hawk and seen him step through the doorway that morning with the package, ... so, obviously, "it never happened -- you're making that up".

--  MWT   

[John Iacoletti]

That's right, Richard.

Just remember: If no one actually sees a bear defecate in the woods, it didn't defecate in the woods.

When there's no evidence of a bear, or woods, or defecation, then one has no basis to just declare that a bear defecated in the woods, because after all it's not impossible.

[John Iacoletti]

It's a bizarre form of "logic" that CTers apply to this case.  They suggest here that because no one "saw" Oswald carry a rifle into the TSBD that somehow creates doubt of the fact (i.e. there is "no evidence whatsoever" LOL!).

Feel free to provide some.

  But the rifle was wrapped in a paper bag.

What is your evidence that the rifle was ever wrapped in a paper bag?

  So unless a witness had x-ray vision no one could actually see the contents of the bag.

So why do you conclude that a rifle was in the bag?  Faith?

This entirely ignores the totality of evidence such as the serial number of the rifle sent to Oswald's PO Box matching the one found in the TSBD.

Except you don't know that a rifle was ever "sent to Oswald".

  The fact that Oswald was seen carrying a long bag that can't otherwise be accounted for in anyway except as containing the rifle.

That's ridiculous.  There's no evidence that the bag that Frazier saw OR the bag allegedly found on the 6th floor ever contained a rifle.  You don't get to just say that it was used to carry a rifle unless someone can prove it didn't.

  The fact that Oswald lied about owing a rifle,

You don't know this was a lie.

there are pictures of him holding it,

Still unproven, no matter how many times you claim it.

and his wife confirmed he owned and stored a rifle in the Paine's garage.

Still false, no matter how many times you claim it.

  It's a slam dunk of evidence rebutted only by the ridiculous argument that because no one can see through paper there is somehow doubt of the matter.

What's ridiculous is you stating as a fact that there is no doubt a rifle was in the paper, even though there is zero evidence of such.

  Absurd and a great example of the dishonest contrarian approach.  Focus on one aspect of the evidence as though removed from the totality of evidence.  Frame the discussion in terms of an impossible standard of proof (i.e. no one can see through paper).  From this imply there is false doubt.  Repeat endlessly.

The dishonest approach is to create a strawman that nobody argued ("no one can see through paper") and argue against that rather than supplying one iota of evidence of any kind that a rifle was ever inside any bag.

[John Iacoletti]

I wonder who needs to prove their case to a crazed contrarian interested in nothing beyond playing games on the semantics seesaw...

Right, the rational thing to do is to just believe what Chapman probably thinks happened, for no reason whatsoever.

DA Chapman:  Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I am 100% certain that Oswald probably killed Kennedy.  The prosecution rests.

Jury:  How compelling.  Not guilty.

Judge: Smirk

[John Iacoletti]

Richard,

Not only that, but no witness, with or without the required x-ray vision, came forward to say he or she had watched Oswald like a hawk and seen him step through the doorway that morning with the package, ... so, obviously, "it never happened -- you're making that up".

Right, because in "Richard" and Tommy-land, a wild-ass guess is automatically true unless somebody can disprove it.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

[Thomas Graves]

Right, because in "Richard" and Tommy-land, a wild-ass guess is automatically true unless somebody can disprove it.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

"A wild-ass guess," says the man so desperate to prove Oswald innocent.

-- MWT   

[Jerry Freeman]

It's a bizarre form of "logic" that CTers apply to this case.   

It's a bizarre form of "logic" doubt that CTers apply to this case. 
 "I am not a conspiracy theorist"---Jerry Freeman    "We choose truth over facts" ---Joe Biden