What about a reasoned response to Mr Galbraith's comment? Like providing "supporting evidence" rather than a rude reply?
He can't. Not won't, he simply cannot. He has to make things up. And deny all of the evidence against Oswald. Not most of it, not some of it: all of it. Every single piece of evidence implicating Oswald in any way is dismissed. Out of hand.
All of the evidence against Oswald in every single one of the above investigations I mentioned is dismissed by characterizing it as just a claim. What does that tell you about how he looks a this? It's simply a fanatical objection to facts and events. It's a "No, no, no."
For example, the HSCA photographic experts say the rifle in the BYP was the rifle found in the sniper's nest. Were they wrong in their analysis? They could be. Experts can be wrong. But one has to show how and why. He can't. He just says they were wrong. He can't show where they were wrong. He knows he can't. But he just dismisses it.
Forensic experts, ballistics experts, fingerprint experts, wound experts, photographic experts - he dismisses out of hand all of their conclusion. For him they are just claims.
This is really easy to do. Just say any and every piece of evidence in any event is just an assumption, a piece of speculation, a claim. Of course he doesn't do this when it comes to all conspiracy claims. Pat Speers above made a conspiracy allegation. Did he dismiss it? Of course not.
As I said, one can argue that all of this is wrong; all of these investigations got it wrong. Fine. Point out where they were. But the conspiracists argument (the main one) is that all of this was a coverup of what happened. A deliberate lie and not a failure or screwup.
The WC was a lie. The HSCA was a lie. The other investigations were lies. All of this. For half a century.
It's absolute paranoid nonsense.
