A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.

[John Iacoletti]

Yeah, only the name and the return address. LOL!

Is that supposed to prove that that particular coupon was ever in that particular envelope?

[John Iacoletti]

No. Just those for whom a doubt on a single piece of evidence makes them ignore all the rest of the evidence.

When what little real evidence there is, is weak and circumstantial, and it's all questionable, arguable, impeachable, or tainted in some way then it's not ignoring anything to call it unreliable.  This isn't a single piece of evidence -- it's every piece of evidence.

The question is whether evidence exists that is capable of convincing 12 reasonable persons that Oswald committed the murder.  The answer to that question is "Yes".

Is this just a guess based on what it takes to convince you of something?

[John Mytton]

Is that supposed to prove that that particular coupon was ever in that particular envelope?

Hilarious talk about desperate, not only are you trying to separate each piece of evidence against Oswald now you're separating each piece of individual evidence into something which has no alternate narrative and no real world equivalence.

JohnM

[Andrew Mason]

When what little real evidence there is, is weak and circumstantial, and it's all questionable, arguable, impeachable, or tainted in some way then it's not ignoring anything to call it unreliable.  This isn't a single piece of evidence -- it's every piece of evidence.

Ok. So let's say there is a finite probability that the microfilm showing the envelope and coupon together is not evidence that the coupon was in the envelope. Let's say that probability is x. Then you have the order sheet prepared by Klein's showing that C2766 was used to fill an order to be sent to Box 2915 Dallas.  Let's say that the probability that C2766 was NOT used to fill such an order is x.  etc.etc. Are you saying at the end of the day you have a probability of x that Oswald never purchased C2766?

[John Iacoletti]

Hilarious talk about desperate, not only are you trying to separate each piece of evidence against Oswald now you're separating each piece of individual evidence into something which has no alternate narrative and no real world equivalence.

What's desperate is you trying to pile an envelope onto your supposed "mountain" that cannot be connected to any particular Klein's order or any particular weapon.

[John Iacoletti]

Ok. So let's say there is a finite probability that the microfilm showing the envelope and coupon together is not evidence that the coupon was in the envelope. Let's say that probability is x. Then you have the order sheet prepared by Klein's showing that C2766 was used to fill an order to be sent to Box 2915 Dallas.  Let's say that the probability that C2766 was NOT used to fill such an order is x.  etc.etc. Are you saying at the end of the day you have a probability of x that Oswald never purchased C2766?

Anyone can make up a value of x -- that isn't particularly useful.  What I'm saying is that none of these things show that Lee Oswald ever had possession of C2766.  At best, the unscientific and biased handwriting "analysis" of 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon, if accurate, just shows that Oswald filled out an order coupon for a 36-inch Italian carbine.

[Andrew Mason]

What's desperate is you trying to pile an envelope onto your supposed "mountain" that cannot be connected to any particular Klein's order or any particular weapon.

The point is that if the probability that each of two independent events occurred is x, the probability that both events occurred is x².  And since x is always less than 1, the probability of all events actually occurring keeps going down exponentially as the number of events increases. You do not seem to appreciate this.

So you have a doubt that Oswald filled out the Klein's coupon and the envelope with his Dallas post box, even though it appears very similar to his handwriting and to the handwriting on the coupon he filled out to purchase the handgun that Marina herself as Oswald's.  Then you say you have a doubt that Klein's filled that order at all, despite the shipping order that was prepared showing that C2766 was used to fill the order. Then you say that you doubt that Oswald or anyone took out a money order to pay for this order.  Let's say that the probability of each doubts being fulfilled is x = .1 (I am being generous: that would mean that, contrary to their documents, 1 in 10 of Klein's orders were not ordered;  a 1 in 10 chance that items were not shipped; and a 1 in 10 chance that they would indicate that an order had been paid when payment had not been received). 

In order for Oswald not to have received the gun, all three doubts must be fulfilled. The probability of fulfilling all three doubts (i.e. for someone other than Oswald to have filled out the coupon rifle AND for Klein's not to have processed the order despite producing paperwork to that effect AND to have done so without being paid and falsely entering that payment had been made) is x³ or 1/1000.

Then you have a rifle photographed in Oswald's hands within a week of when the rifle would most likely have arrived in Oswald's post box. Then that rifle shows up in the very building that Oswald worked in and has prints that are not inconsistent with Oswald's prints and Oswald is seen carrying a long package to work that morning etc. The probability becomes exponentially lower.  Even if you put a probability of each piece being false at .5 the probability that ALL of this evidence being false becomes extremely small as the evidence mounts.  That is the problem with your position.