Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory

[Martin Weidmann]

We have gone over this a thousand times.  You know the evidence. What psychological impulse wants to go over it again and again?  Weird.  Here it is again as outlined by the WC nearly six decades ago.  A rifle belonging to Oswald was left on the 6th floor.  The crime scene.  Oswald is the only person known to have access to this rifle.  It was stored in a garage where only he and his wife knew it was there.  His wife didn't bring it to the TSBD.  His prints are found on it.  He was photographed holding it.  His wife confirms he owned a rifle.  He carried a long bag to work that morning after making an unusual trip to the location where the rifle was stored (and later lied to the police about carrying a long bag).  Fired bullet casings from Oswald's rifle were found by the very window from which several witnesses confirm seeing a rifle/shooter at the moment of the crime (i.e. 12:30). Confirmation that Oswald's rifle was used in the crime.  Oswald has no alibi for the moment of the crime.  He provides the police with no explanation for how his rifle came to be on the 6th floor.  Instead he lies to them about ownership of any rifle to distance himself from the murder weapon.  Oswald's prints are found on the SN boxes in the window from which the shots were fired.  No other TSBD employee left prints on those boxes.  Oswald's prints were also found on the long bag next to that window from which the shots were fired.  He flees the crime scene within minutes.  Flight can be used as evidence of guilt.   In rebuttal, you have merely suggested that it is not impossible for someone to have left Oswald's rifle at the scene.   You have not provided an iota of evidence to support this point or even attempted to do so.  Just arguing that it is apparently not impossible because no one has a time machine.  Weak contrarian sauce.  Guilty.

Yes, we have been over this and yet still you come up with the same BS expecting a different result.

You claim Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired, but you obviously can not provide conclusive evidence for that. Which is why you keep on repeating your flawed conjecture based upon highly questional assumptions and claims that are simply not true.

The bottom line is a simple one; you can't prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. Period.

[Richard Smith]

Yes, we have been over this and yet still you come up with the same BS expecting a different result.

You claim Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired, but you obviously can not provide conclusive evidence for that. Which is why you keep on repeating your flawed conjecture based upon highly questional assumptions and claims that are simply not true.

The bottom line is a simple one; you can't prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. Period.

The "bottom line" is that I can't convince you because you are a contrarian loon who applies an impossible subjective standard of proof to the topic.  Can you understand why that is not necessary?  That is actually a rhetorical question since I realize that you are incapable of such. 

[Martin Weidmann]

The "bottom line" is that I can't convince you because you are a contrarian loon who applies an impossible subjective standard of proof to the topic.  Can you understand why that is not necessary?  That is actually a rhetorical question since I realize that you are incapable of such.

Hilarious!   

The fanatical cry baby "prosecutor" is complaining to the Judge that his highly questionable evidence can't covince a jury member, who is applying a basic standard of proof. LOL

But thank you for this display of ignorance and arrogance (*) as well as confirming that you don't have the evidence to prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. 


(*) a reasonable person will re-examine his arguments when his "evidence" or lack thereof fails to convince somebody. An ignorant and arrogant person continues to believe his own BS and simply blames the person he can't convince.

[Richard Smith]

(*) a reasonable person will re-examine his arguments when his "evidence" or lack thereof fails to convince somebody. An ignorant and arrogant person continues to believe his own BS and simply blames the person he can't convince.

That's pure comedy gold considering the source.

[Martin Weidmann]

That's pure comedy gold considering the source.

No need to display your ignorance and arrogance again.

[Richard Smith]

No need to display your ignorance and arrogance again.

Are you 12 years old?  Honestly, the hysterics are embarrassing. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Are you 12 years old?  Honestly, the hysterics are embarrassing.

Oh boy... I guess being confronted with the truth is something your ego can't handle very well. Poor boy....

Talk about comedy gold;

The "bottom line" is that I can't convince you because you are a contrarian loon who applies an impossible subjective standard of proof to the topic. 

Nearly just as funny as when you claimed that the evidence for Oswald coming down the stairs was that it happened