Spot The Difference

[Martin Weidmann]

Citing the actual evidence compiled by the law enforcement entities charged with investigating the case is somehow comical and an appeal to authority in your view?  Wow.  Imagine Martin/Roger Googling that phrase to come up with something clever.  Pitiful.  I guess I should just jump on an Internet forum and make stuff up in endless rambling posts.   I know that the use of evidence is inconsistent with your impossible standard of proof mantra when it comes to Oswald's guilt (i.e. the lazy contrarian Alice-in-Wonderland logic) but that is what is used to solve criminal cases here on Planet Earth.

Citing the actual evidence compiled by the law enforcement entities charged with investigating the case is somehow comical and an appeal to authority in your view?  Wow.

Yes because it shows you are merely a parrot and have no inquisitive mind of your own.

I know that the use of evidence is inconsistent with your impossible standard of proof mantra when it comes to Oswald's guilt (i.e. the lazy contrarian Alice-in-Wonderland logic) but that is what is used to solve criminal cases here on Planet Earth.

Your constant whing about my alleged "impossible standard of proof" is not only getting old, it also exposes the weakness of the case you are trying to promote. I've said this before, you're like a badly prepared prosecutor with a weak case who complains to the Judge about the jury because they are not buying his crap!

And btw, I don't believe for a moment that you have any idea how crimes are solved.

[Richard Smith]

Citing the actual evidence compiled by the law enforcement entities charged with investigating the case is somehow comical and an appeal to authority in your view?  Wow.

Yes because it shows you are merely a parrot and have no inquisitive mind of your own.

I know that the use of evidence is inconsistent with your impossible standard of proof mantra when it comes to Oswald's guilt (i.e. the lazy contrarian Alice-in-Wonderland logic) but that is what is used to solve criminal cases here on Planet Earth.

Your constant whing about my alleged "impossible standard of proof" is not only getting old, it also exposes the weakness of the case you are trying to promote. I've said this before, you're like a badly prepared prosecutor with a weak case who complains to the Judge about the jury because they are not buying his crap!

And btw, I don't believe for a moment that you have any idea how crimes are solved.

By using a "mind of your own" do you mean ignoring the actual evidence compiled by the investigators and instead dreaming up what might be "possible"?  Then suggesting there is doubt but only after adding numerous insults.  Good work Inspector Clouseau.

[Jon Banks]

The Crime Scene looks staged because it was staged

[Martin Weidmann]

By using a "mind of your own" do you mean ignoring the actual evidence compiled by the investigators and instead dreaming up what might be "possible"?  Then suggesting there is doubt but only after adding numerous insults.  Good work Inspector Clouseau.

By using a "mind of your own" do you mean ignoring the actual evidence compiled by the investigators and instead dreaming up what might be "possible"? 

If one of us is ignoring evidence then it's you. You do it all the time. Whatever is written in your WC bible is all you ever want to know. I'm guessing your high priest told you not to listen to other opinions because you might stray from the righteous path! You're a zealot in a cult and don't even know it.

[Dan O'meara]

The Crime Scene looks staged because it was staged

Tom Alyea really argues for this point.
He says he took images of the SN in it's original position but then the whole thing was stripped down before Studebaker or Day took any photos of it. It then had to be reconstructed for the official investigation pics, which may explain why there are two completely different set-ups for the "rifle rest".
He is also adamant Fritz pocketed the shells before any official pics were taken and gave them to Studebaker to recreate the scene.
If true we must be looking at something beyond incompetence.

[John Iacoletti]

Nice cut and paste job, "Richard".  As usual, you confuse conclusions and conjectures made about the evidence with evidence itself.  You claim that "there are photos, forms, serial numbers and even prints that link Oswald to a specific rifle", and then spew a cut-and-paste job that admits that the photos did not identify a specific rifle and that the prints were insufficient for identification purposes.

As for the WC conclusions,

- There is no evidence that Klein's ever sent such a package through the mail
- There is no evidence that such a package was picked up at the post office by Oswald or anybody else
- The FBI stated definitively that Hidell was not authorized on PO Box 2915
- The bank deposit slip presented was from February
- There is no evidence of Oswald ever using "Hidell" or anything like it as an alias for himself
- The original Klein's microfilm is conveniently "missing"
- Handwriting "analysis" is unscientific and biased and even those who do it say that it is particularly unreliable when done on non-originals with small sample sizes
- Oswald was at work all day when the money order found in Virginia was allegedly purchased
- Klein's produced no image of the alleged money order used for this alleged order
- The Hidell selective service card was not mentioned in any statement, interview, or report prior to the Klein's order turning up
- Carl Day's magic partial palmprint was not turned over to the FBI with all the other evidence or even mentioned to the FBI, and instead showed up a week later on an index card.  Latona said that area of the rifle did not have traces remaining there, which Day claimed there were, and it didn't appear to Latona that the area had even been processed
- The WC admitted that fibers cannot be matched to a specific garment
- There is no evidence that that particular rifle was in the Paine garage on 11/21 or ever
- Marina never said in any testimony that she saw Lee "on the screened-in porch at night practicing with the rifle by looking through the telescopic sight and operating the bolt"
- The paper bag does not appear in any crime scene photos and the officers involved didn't even agree on where it was found, when it was found, or how it was folded
- The only two people to see the package Oswald carried said it was not CE142
- There is no evidence that a rifle was ever inside CE142 or the package Frazier saw

So the question is, does "Richard" even understand his own cut-and-paste argument?

[Tom Scully]

John, I think you are going beyond what is reasonable in several of your points besides these three examples.

Also, the P. Money Order was found exactly where a money order of that type should have been archived.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170728100038/http://jfk.education/node/11
....

....
https://web.archive.org/web/20170728100038/http://www.uspostalbulletins.com/PDF/Vol83_Issue20338_19621129.pdf#search=%22money%20order%22

Nice cut and paste job, "Richard".  As usual, you confuse conclusions and conjectures made about the evidence with evidence itself.  You claim that "there are photos, forms, serial numbers and even prints that link Oswald to a specific rifle", and then spew a cut-and-paste job that admits that the photos did not identify a specific rifle and that the prints were insufficient for identification purposes.

As for the WC conclusions,

- There is no evidence that Klein's ever sent such a package through the mail
- There is no evidence that such a package was picked up at the post office by Oswald or anybody else
- The FBI stated definitively that Hidell was not authorized on PO Box 2915
- The bank deposit slip presented was from February
- There is no evidence of Oswald ever using "Hidell" or anything like it as an alias for himself
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=433&search=hidell_and%20%22fair%20play%22



https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=143&search=oswald_and%20hidell%20and%20application

- The original Klein's microfilm is conveniently "missing"
- Handwriting "analysis" is unscientific and biased and even those who do it say that it is particularly unreliable when done on non-originals with small sample sizes
- Oswald was at work all day when the money order found in Virginia was allegedly purchased
- Klein's produced no image of the alleged money order used for this alleged order
- The Hidell selective service card was not mentioned in any statement, interview, or report prior to the Klein's order turning up
- Carl Day's magic partial palmprint was not turned over to the FBI with all the other evidence or even mentioned to the FBI, and instead showed up a week later on an index card.  Latona said that area of the rifle did not have traces remaining there, which Day claimed there were, and it didn't appear to Latona that the area had even been processed
- The WC admitted that fibers cannot be matched to a specific garment
- There is no evidence that that particular rifle was in the Paine garage on 11/21 or ever
- Marina never said in any testimony that she saw Lee "on the screened-in porch at night practicing with the rifle by looking through the telescopic sight and operating the bolt"
- The paper bag does not appear in any crime scene photos and the officers involved didn't even agree on where it was found, when it was found, or how it was folded
- The only two people to see the package Oswald carried said it was not CE142
- There is no evidence that a rifle was ever inside CE142 or the package Frazier saw

So the question is, does "Richard" even understand his own cut-and-paste argument?