A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.

[Bill Chapman]

Is this empty rhetoric supposed to prove your case?

Are your constant attempts to separate the pieces from the whole somehow supposed to prove something, other than that you are constantly attempting to separate the pieces from the whole?

[John Iacoletti]

Are your constant attempts to separate the pieces from the whole somehow supposed to prove something, other than that you are constantly attempting to separate the pieces from the whole?

You have yet to explain how combining things that aren't evidence somehow turn into evidence.

[John Iacoletti]

Yeah

I also read Frazier saying under oath that it could or couldn't be the the sack he saw Oswald carrying. He didn't rule it out. Of course you lot ignore that which is inconvenient to your pet theories.

That's an interesting claim.  Would you care to quote where you think that Frazier said under oath that it could or couldn't be the the sack he saw Oswald carrying?

[Bill Chapman]

You have yet to explain how combining things that aren't evidence somehow turn into evidence.

You have yet to explain how ignoring context somehow proves anything other than that you ignoring context.

[John Iacoletti]

You have yet to explain how ignoring context somehow proves anything other than that you ignoring context.

I'm not ignoring anything.

[Andrew Mason]

No, all I have to do is show that the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the evidence.  It's a fact that Oswald left his wedding ring behind.  It's not a fact that he did so because he was planning to shoot the president.

There is evidence that he was planning to shoot the President (i.e. the evidence that he shot the President and the evidence that it was obviously planned). Marina could only find one reason that he would do that: that he was not planning on ever returning (her 2013 letter that accompanied the sale of the ring).  It is not difficult to connect those dots.

You're already off the rails when you say "Oswald?s Mannlicher-Carcano rifle".  That's an assumption, not a fact.

You seem to use the word "assumption" for "evidence based conclusion".  There is evidence that he ordered C2766, that it was shipped to  Oswald's mail box, that it was not returned, that Oswald had his photo taken in the back yard shortly after the gun was shipped, and that Oswald used that rifle to shoot Gen. Walker.  That is sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to conclude that Oswald owned the MC.  You may not draw that conclusion. But your reluctance to conclude what other reasonable people would does not make it an assumption.

Define "fled".  That's a value judgment, not a fact.  He certainly left and didn't return, which is true for other employees as well.

Again, you're assuming that he killed somebody else to demonstrate that he killed JFK.  That doesn't follow.

"bore the signature"?  What on earth does that mean?  You could also say that Tippit's murder "bore the signature" of a professional hit man -- rapid shooting from the hip.

They had no grounds for arrest, nor did they tell him he was under arrest, hence he could not by definition have "resisted arrest".  Also the arrest report box for "resisted" was not even checked.

That's flat out false.  Even by McDonald's account, he merely "went for it".  Whatever that means.  What does this have to do with Kennedy anyway?

Really?  Name them.  Along with your proof that they are lies.

Bugliosi's words.

How do the backyard photos tell you who killed Kennedy?

Just one piece in the puzzle.

There are no shipping records.  How do  Klein's purchase records tell you who killed Kennedy?

Well, there is the shipping order that was initialed by the person who was responsible for shipping. What makes you think it was not shipped as the document says?

You're confused.  There were no discernible prints on any stock.

Well, there were prints that were consistent with Oswald's on a part of the gun covered by the stock.

What is your evidence that Oswald fired an MC at Gen. Walker?

Oswald's statements to Marina.

What bullets?  You mean the mutilated steel-jacketed bullet that the police said they found there?

Are you aware of some metallurgical analysis was conducted on the Walker bullet showing that it was steel?  You seem to require an awful lot of detailed evidence to support one little tiny fact in the narrative of Oswald's guilt but seem to be able to reach firm conclusions of contrary facts without any evidence at all.

Actually none of it establishes that C2766 belonged to Oswald.

Not to you.  But to other reasonable people, there is more than enough evidence to reach that conclusion.

What "business record" shows that a package ever went through the US mail to this address?  Klein's would have had to pay postage for this shipment, right?  Where is the record of that payment? How do you know it went through the mail then?

There is evidence that it was mailed 20-Mar-63 and there is evidence  from the post office that it would normally have arrived in Dallas the next day.   According to the post office system, a notice would have been placed in Oswald's box (2915).  Marina says Oswald bought a gun through the mail at about that time and took a picture of Oswald with the gun that is identical to the C2766 MC.  That is how we know it went through the mail.

How does that follow?  A bullet with a pointed tip was found on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland Hospital.  What reason do you have for assuming it was related to the assassination of JFK?  Why does it take a "huge conspiracy" for an unrelated bullet to be found at a hospital?

There is evidence that the bullet found at Parkland was CE399.  If someone who saw the bullet thought it was pointed, they were wrong.

You don't actually know that any of the shots in Dealey Plaza were fired by C2766.  That's an assumption too.  Given that you can't demonstrate that CE399 was the bullet found on the stretcher or that CE399 ever went through Kennedy, Connally, or any human body at any time, your assumption that it was involved in the assassination is completely without merit.

It is a conclusion based on evidence made by reasonable people, which you do not happen to agree with. That does not make it an assumption.

[John Iacoletti]

And how is it that she could have invented her story about seeing Oswald with a long bag? 
Are you saying she already knew that the police had found a long bag in the SN with Oswald's palm prints on it?  Because that is the only reasonable possibility if she invented the story.

That's not the only reasonable possibility.  Nobody (including the police) knew that "the police had found a long bag in the SN with Oswald's palm prints on it".  Nobody knows that even now.

But BWF could have talked to LMR about the bag he saw between the time he left work and before he went to the hospital to visit his abusive stepfather.  And she could have decided to corroborate his story for whatever reason without having actually seen the bag in question.  At a minimum she embellished the account of seeing him put the bag in the bag seat of the car on the other side of the enclosed carport.

We don't have evidence of that, but it is obvious that he took it there.

LOL.  How is it "obvious" that LHO took CE 142 (or any other bag) from the TSBD to Irving?  Just because you think he did?

  Let's figure it out. Could Oswald not have cut some paper, folded it up and taken it with him to Irving on 21-Nov-63? Maybe hidden under his jacket  or shirt? Why not?

How did you leap from "it's possible" to "it's obvious"?

Read all of LMR's evidence. She admitted later that she must have asked him because she did remember Frazier saying that Oswald told him about the curtain rods.

So she had no idea how or when she got that information, but somehow that's evidence that she knew about the "curtain rods" the night before?

So how do you explain the documentation provided by Klein's showing that the order was processes and shipped?

There is no documentation showing that the order was shipped.

How do you explain the Klein's shipping order with the shipping date (20-Mar-63) and the initials showing it was sent?  Was that made up? How did it get on Klein's microfilm?

How does "PP" circled on a copy of an "order blank" show that a package ever actually went through the postal service?  And how do you know what is on Klein's microfilm?  It's "missing"!