David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed

[John Iacoletti]

It has been shown that Oswald purchased a revolver with the same description and serial no.

Bull. What’s actually been shown is that unscientific and biased handwriting “analysis” of a few letters on a copy of an order coupon purports that he filled out the coupon.

The bullets used to kill Tippit were the same kind of bullet

There were literally millions of .38 special bullets. These particular ones did not have sufficient characteristics to identify the weapon.

and the four .38 calibre shells found at the scene of his murder had firing pin marks that exactly matched the highly irregular profile of the gun's firing pin.

Too bad the evidence was so mishandled that you cannot demonstrate those particular shells were found at the crime scene or had anything to do with Tippit.

FBI ballistics officers noted that the bullets from Tippit and those known to have been fired by CE143 had the same class characteristics - five lands and five grooves twisting to the right.

All .38 bullets have 5 lands and grooves with a right twist.

This was not conclusive because the bullets were a tad smaller than the barrel and the bullet did not rifle properly. But  the bullets recovered from Tippit did carry evidence of erosion resulting from barrel gases escaping through the space between the bullet and the barrel.

This was a very commonly done modification.

Here’s where the giant leap occurs:

So it was the gun used to kill Officer Tippit. 

Sorry, no. That doesn’t just follow.

[John Iacoletti]

So they acquire it somehow and then go to the theater and know the person there was the shooter? Was Oswald specifically? Or someone? What exactly? And they, who Carroll? Hill?, just decided to plant it on this person in the theater? Knowing absolutely nothing about him? He could be anyone, he could have an alibi. The witnesses at the scene could all say: "No, that's not the man I saw." But they just planted it on this unknown person seen sneaking (supposedly) into the theater? Meanwhile the real shooter is out there? Why didn't they plant it on the first suspect they grabbed? The person who worked at the library? On and on and on....

None of this, not a lick of it, makes sense on any level.

There’s a good reason for that. It’s a ridiculous strawman that no real person has ever suggested.

[John Iacoletti]

You need enough to persuade 12 to acquit.
I agree. If the victim had been someone other than the President, there would be no issue.  The idea that a nobody like Oswald could change history does not sit well with some people.

Jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions doesn’t sit well with people who are interested in the truth.

[John Iacoletti]

And before you go of an another pathetic rant, this was hypothetical to offer a possible explanation of what could have happened and thus not a claim about what actually happened. because unlike you I don't pretend to know what happened. I'm just merely trying to find out what likely did happen.

One thing I’ve learned about WC-cultists is that they don’t make a distinction between a possible explanation and a claim about what actually happened.

[Martin Weidmann]

What is with the endless hostility and calling folks "fool"?  It a real shame that is allowed to go on.  Get a grip on your emotions.  Now it's just a "possibility" again that the revolver in evidence is the gun used to kill Tippit.  You are all over the place.  Why would someone plant another revolver on him that had nothing to do with the Tippit murder if the intent was to frame him for that crime?  This fantasy makes even less sense.  You are twisting like a pretzel.

What is with the endless hostility and calling folks "fool"?

There is no hostility there. It's just a statement of fact.
If you don't want to be called a fool, just stop behaving like one.
And btw, the next time Bill Brown calls somebody foolish, I trust you will jump in and complain about that, right?

[John Mytton]

What a blizzard of contrarian nonsense.  So the revolver in evidence is the one used to kill Tippit?  You have previously indicated that it was and then argued it was not.  But now it is again.  And it has the same serial number as the pistol sent to Oswald's PO Box (as confirmed by third party documentation that preexisted the murder).  What an astounding coincidence.  The real murderer somehow used Oswald's revolver, Oswald had some different revolver when arrested, and the someone was able to find the revolver used to kill Tippit (Oswald's revolver) and then switch it.  Simple.  HA HA HA.  No one can believe such nonsense.

You have previously indicated that it was and then argued it was not.  But now it is again.

 

Because the hardcore CT knows that whatever alternative narrative that is presented will conflict with other evidence and thus will be instantly dismissed and the inevitable humiliation will follow, so they avoid presenting a story that fits. But hilariously Weidmann has exposed a partial narrative which when examined closely is illogical and only reinforces the actual historical events. The back pedalling on display is great fun to watch!

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Because the hardcore CT knows that whatever alternative narrative that is presented will conflict with other evidence and thus will be instantly dismissed and the inevitable humiliation will follow, so they avoid presenting a story that fits. But hilariously Weidmann has exposed a partial narrative which when examined closely is illogical and only reinforces the actual historical events. The back pedalling on display is great fun to watch!

JohnM

Still living in your own little fictional and imaginary world, I see.
Putting your inability to actually discuss the evidence on full display, yet again. Sad.