Did Captain Fritz show Mr Oswald a Mauser?

[Martin Weidmann]

Oswald is linked to the rifle by the evidence (i.e. documents, prints, photos, witness testimony, serial number, PO box, use of an alias associated with him).  The rifle is linked to the assassination by overwhelming evidence (i.e. found at the crime scene, fired bullet casings, bullets and bullet fragments from that rifle).  Your rebuttal is simply that all this evidence could be faked or planted.  That is not a basis to raise any doubt.  It is an exercise in applying an impossible standard of proof to the facts and evidence to raise fake doubt.

As I said earlier;
 

Indeed, neither "Richard" or that clown, Chapman, for that matter are able to have a normal discussion about the evidence. All they do is repeat the same old weak and implausible narrative and ignore and dismiss anything that does not fit in that narrative. It reminds me of Albert Einstein's famous line: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Your rebuttal is simply that all this evidence could be faked or planted. That is not a basis to raise any doubt.

No. My rebuttal is that the so-called "overwhelming" evidence is not only in no way overwhelming but also highly questionable to the extent that it justifies reasonable doubt. 

It is an exercise in applying an impossible standard of proof to the facts and evidence to raise fake doubt.

Pointing out inconsistencies in the evidence and asking questions you can't (or don't want to) answer is not applying an impossible standard of proof. It is exposing the weakness of the narrative. It's not my problem that you don't like that.

[Bill Chapman]

Sure, Mortimer, but a discussion is more that just telling us who you believe did it over and over again.  Oh yeah, and all of your "clever, cut-to-the-quick insights".

------------
GLOSSARY
------------

Neil > rhymes with 'kneel'
as in kneeling at Oswald's grave

Mortimer > tell us what that has to do with anything, Mr McNeely

Oh yeah, and here's one of my clever, cut-to-the-quick insights: I've never trusted one word you've ever said. Here, let me cut that insight further, Neil: I don't trust you.

[Bill Chapman]

Facts don't matter to "Richard".  If he wants them to be the same, then *poof*, they are the same.

"Richard"

Kudos to Richard if he is indeed using a generic name. You know, the ID theft thing.

As opposed to certain people who expose all their details on spaces like 'mylife'

Not to mention your atheist space on YouTube. Not to mention the tshirt emblazoned with 'IACOLETTI' you are wearing on said atheist space.

Talk about attention-seeking, eh cowboy
--------------------------------------------------------------------
« Iacoletti Reply #220 on: March 03, 2021, 10:42:35 PM »
Poor little attention-seeking clown-boy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

[Bill Chapman]

Indeed, neither "Richard" or that clown, Chapman, for that matter are able to have a normal discussion about the evidence. All they do is repeat the same old weak and implausible narrative and ignore and dismiss anything that does not fit in that narrative. It reminds me of Albert Einstein's famous line: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

'That clown Chapman' does not trust anything you say.

[Walt Cakebread]

'That clown Chapman' does not trust anything you say.

Lil Chappie....You've made it abundantly clear that you believe in tales like Alice in Wonderland , and the Warren Report,  so it comes as no surprise that you wouldn't believe that 2 +2=4 ....if the WR reported that 2+2=5.

[Bill Chapman]

Lil Chappie....You've made it abundantly clear that you believe in tales like Alice in Wonderland , and the Warren Report,  so it comes as no surprise that you wouldn't believe that 2 +2=4 ....if the WR reported that 2+2=5.

You've made it abundantly clear that you are desperate for responses by the way you keep bumping yourself to Page 1.

[Walt Cakebread]

As I said earlier;
 
Your rebuttal is simply that all this evidence could be faked or planted. That is not a basis to raise any doubt.

No. My rebuttal is that the so-called "overwhelming" evidence is not only in no way overwhelming but also highly questionable to the extent that it justifies reasonable doubt. 

It is an exercise in applying an impossible standard of proof to the facts and evidence to raise fake doubt.

Pointing out inconsistencies in the evidence and asking questions you can't (or don't want to) answer is not applying an impossible standard of proof. It is exposing the weakness of the narrative. It's not my problem that you don't like that.

Pointing out inconsistencies in the evidence and asking questions you can't (or don't want to) answer is not applying an impossible standard of proof. It is exposing the weakness of the narrative.

These are the questions that would have been raised if Lee had lived to stand trial.    And it should be obvious that Lee would never have been convicted.....

[John Iacoletti]

Neil > rhymes with 'kneel'
as in kneeling at Oswald's grave

So what?  You visit your father's grave.

Oh yeah, and here's one of my clever, cut-to-the-quick insights: I've never trusted one word you've ever said. Here, let me cut that insight further, Neil: I don't trust you.

Again, so what?