US National Archives: (some) Files to be released today

[John Iacoletti]

It's once again putting the evidence in a sort of Twilight Zone. It exists but it doesn't; it's there but it's not; we can discuss it but we can't; you can cite it but you can't.

As in: "Yes, there's a photo of Oswald with the rifle; but it's not credible or authentic."

So how did it come into being? Who made it? If it exists then it came to be. How did that happen?

That's an argument from ignorance fallacy.  You have to actually demonstrate that it is the same rifle to the exclusion of any other rifle, not just assume it.

[Mark A. Oblazney]

Sorry, I don't respond to insults.

And I wouldn't too !!   Best wishes for you, sir, in the following year of 2022+

[Steve M. Galbraith]

That's an argument from ignorance fallacy.  You have to actually demonstrate that it is the same rifle to the exclusion of any other rifle, not just assume it.

Which was done but you reject their conclusions. You don't show where they were wrong, you just dismiss their conclusions. The HSCA photographic experts, for example, studied the photos microscopically. They concluded the rifle in the photo was the rifle recovered from the TSBD.

But you say they're wrong. Can they be wrong? Of course. But you have to show it. But you say I have to somehow prove they are right. And impossible standard. You reject them OUT OF HAND. So does Weidmann. Then you can't give an alternate explanation for the existence of this evidence.

So where do we go? We cite "A" and "B" and "C" and you folks deny the existence of "A" and "B" and "C". We have to somehow - by your standard - demonstrate that "A" and "B" and "C" exist. We can't. Then when we ask, "Okay how did this come into being if it's not legitimate?" we get no response. 

There is no way we can prove to your satisfaction that the rifle belonged to Oswald. Et cetera, et cetera. None.

Meanwhile, we have all of these conspiracy claims being made - the Stone movie - and you skeptics are nowhere to be found. Pardon me if we have doubts about your claims about not being conspiracists.

And that, as they say is that. It's a New Year and I'm moving on. But this is like being in the Mob (so they say); once you're in it you're in for life. <g>.

[John Iacoletti]

Which was done but you reject their conclusions. You don't show where they were wrong, you just dismiss their conclusions. The HSCA photographic experts, for example, studied the photos microscopically. They concluded the rifle in the photo was the rifle recovered from the TSBD.

Conclusions aren't evidence.  In this case, one panel member, Sgt Kirk, thought the single mark he saw in CE 133A "tilted the scales".  That's not to the exclusion of any other rifle.  No analysis or measurements of any kind were offered.  I get that you like the conclusion, but that doesn't make it justified.

Frankly, it's mind-boggling that this level of proof is sufficient for you to accept the conclusion.  It's as if you don't care how a conclusion is arrived at as long as it confirms what you already believe.

There is no way we can prove to your satisfaction that the rifle belonged to Oswald.

That's correct, because there is no proof of that.  At best you can demonstrate that unscientific and biased handwriting "analysis" of two block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon (from microfilm that is "missing") purports that he filled out an order coupon for a similar but not identical firearm.  You have no evidence that the CE 139 rifle ever went through the postal service, was delivered to a post office in Dallas, or was ever signed for and picked up by Oswald or anybody else.  You have no conclusive evidence that CE139 belonged to Oswald or even was ever in the possession of Oswald on 11/22/63, or ever.

That's why we "LOL" at the expression "Oswald's rifle".

Meanwhile, we have all of these conspiracy claims being made - the Stone movie - and you skeptics are nowhere to be found. Pardon me if we have doubts about your claims about not being conspiracists.

What "conspiracy claim" in Stone's movie would you like me to be skeptical of?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

And I wouldn't too !!   Best wishes for you, sir, in the following year of 2022+

Thanks and same to you Mark!

[Richard Smith]

Which was done but you reject their conclusions. You don't show where they were wrong, you just dismiss their conclusions. The HSCA photographic experts, for example, studied the photos microscopically. They concluded the rifle in the photo was the rifle recovered from the TSBD.

But you say they're wrong. Can they be wrong? Of course. But you have to show it. But you say I have to somehow prove they are right. And impossible standard. You reject them OUT OF HAND. So does Weidmann. Then you can't give an alternate explanation for the existence of this evidence.

So where do we go? We cite "A" and "B" and "C" and you folks deny the existence of "A" and "B" and "C". We have to somehow - by your standard - demonstrate that "A" and "B" and "C" exist. We can't. Then when we ask, "Okay how did this come into being if it's not legitimate?" we get no response. 

There is no way we can prove to your satisfaction that the rifle belonged to Oswald. Et cetera, et cetera. None.

Meanwhile, we have all of these conspiracy claims being made - the Stone movie - and you skeptics are nowhere to be found. Pardon me if we have doubts about your claims about not being conspiracists.

And that, as they say is that. It's a New Year and I'm moving on. But this is like being in the Mob (so they say); once you're in it you're in for life. <g>.

It's the same lazy contrarian shell game that involves applying a subjective, impossible standard of proof to any evidence that implicates Oswald to suggest false doubt.  Then going down the rabbit hole using a lot of pedantic arguments.  Using that contrarian standard, no fact in human history could ever be proven.  By necessity, if this form of analysis had any validity it would, by implication, suggest that something else occurred.  There is no evidence, however, to support any of these alternative narratives much less evidence to satisfy the contrarian's own impossible standard of proof standard.  As a result, they ignore the implications of their own analysis having any validity.  It begins and ends with suggesting doubt as to Oswald's guilt. Thas is the sole objective. Like a defense attorney defending a guilty client.  Repeat endlessly.  The case against Oswald is overwhelming.  His rifle was found at the crime scene.  It was used to kill JFK.  Oswald had no credible alibi or explanation for the presence of his rifle on the 6th floor.  Instead he lied about his ownership of that rifle, fled the scene, and was involved in another murder less than an hour later.  A slam dunk case.  He would have been convicted in ten minutes by any jury.

[John Iacoletti]

It's the same lazy contrarian shell game that involves applying a subjective, impossible standard of proof to any evidence that implicates Oswald to suggest false doubt.

Translation from "Richard"-speak:  I know my evidence is weak and inconclusive, but you should accept my conclusions anyway because it's all I've got.

  Then going down the rabbit hole using a lot of pedantic arguments.  Using that contrarian standard, no fact in human history could ever be proven.  By necessity, if this form of analysis had any validity it would, by implication, suggest that something else occurred.

Translation from "Richard"-speak:  I can't prove my claims so I'll shift the burden of proof and hope nobody notices.

The case against Oswald is overwhelming.

"Richard" is easily overwhelmed.

  His rifle was found at the crime scene.

"His rifle". LOL.

It was used to kill JFK.

You don't know what weapon killed JFK.

  Oswald had no credible alibi

Neither did at least 5 other people in the TSBD alone.

or explanation for the presence of his rifle on the 6th floor.

"His rifle".  LOL.

  Instead he lied about his ownership of that rifle,

Translation from "Richard"-speak:  The way I know he "lied" is because I believe he owned it.
Circular.

fled the scene,

Translation from "Richard"-speak: if somebody leaves and I think they're guilty, then it is "fleeing".

and was involved in another murder less than an hour later.

Translation from "Richard"-speak:  if I accuse somebody of committing another murder, then that somehow becomes evidence that he committed a different murder.

A slam dunk case.  He would have been convicted in ten minutes by any jury.

Translation from "Richard"-speak:  my fantasy about what would happen at a hypothetical trial is interesting and persuasive.