Who Killed J.D. Tippit?

[John Mytton]

Really? So. what was their reason to exclude the fake Hidell ID?

What an absurd go nowhere question.

By the time of the exhibit, the Hidell ID has been firmly established to be in Oswald's wallet at the time of his arrest, it's clear that the Hidell ID which actually exists was elsewhere, perhaps in another section showing all the Hidell evidence.

The best idea is, why don't you get up off your butt and ask the National archives yourself because all Charles, others and myself can do, is give logical speculation as to it's whereabouts. And whatever the answer is, it won't satisfy you because you have a closed mind for any answer that doesn't include conspiracy.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

What an absurd go nowhere question.

By the time of the exhibit, the Hidell ID has been firmly established to be in Oswald's wallet at the time of his arrest, it's clear that the Hidell ID which actually exists was elsewhere, perhaps in another section showing all the Hidell evidence.

The best idea is why don't you get up off your butt and ask the National archives yourself because all Charles, others and myself can do, is give logical speculation as to it's whereabouts. And whatever the answer is, it won't satisfy you because you have a closed mind for any answer that doesn't include conspiracy.

JohnM

By the time of the exhibit, the Hidell ID has been firmly established to be in Oswald's wallet at the time of his arrest

Really? So why did they exclude the fake Hidell ID?

it's clear that the Hidell ID which actually exists was elsewhere, perhaps in another section showing all the Hidell evidence.

Thanks for sharing your pathetic opinion.

The best idea is why don't you get up off your butt and ask the National archives yourself

Already did.

[John Mytton]

The best idea is why don't you get up off your butt and ask the National archives yourself

Already did.

I find that hard to believe, but do tell, what did they say?

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

At one point or another you have tried to refute almost every point on my long list but your equally long list of objections must equally lead to a logical culmination of an alternative narrative, right?

No, that’s not right. The burden is always on the person making the positive claim. If you cannot sufficiently meet your burden (for the reasons given), then your conclusions are invalid. Nobody has to come up with another narrative. The default isn’t your unproven hypothesis, it’s the null hypothesis until something else is proven.

The Hidell evidence that is directly associated with Oswald was either made/directed by Oswald, or there was other people involved because the mountain of evidence didn't just suddenly magically appear, someone had to create it, plant it and lie about it.

Of course somebody made the Hidell ID. It doesn’t just follow that it was made by Oswald or that it was made before the assassination. You don’t prove that he did merely by pretending that a giant conspiracy is the only other possibility.

[John Iacoletti]

You seem hung up on religious analogies but in this case there is rock solid evidence and it leads all the way to Lee Harvey Oswald.

We’ve seen what you consider “rock solid evidence”. In the case of the 53 pieces trotted out by your admiree, 46 are not evidence at all (at least with regard to JFK), 4 point to a particular weapon, not a person, and 8 items (including some of the above) are questionable or tainted in some way. “Rock solid” is wishful thinking.

Btw Conspiracy Theorists (unlike sensible LNers) are a passionate lot and when I used my real name in an unassociated discussion group I was tracked down and my family and myself were violently threatened, therefore I use an alias.

I’m sincerely sorry this happened to you. And this in no way excuses threats, but maybe you and “Richard” wouldn’t have to worry so much about it if the use of an alias wasn’t a cover to be jerks to people. There are some unhinged and abusive people on all sides.

[John Iacoletti]

And yes it's a cautionary tale and under the right similar conditions, a clever Defence team could again manipulate, divert and twist the truth and have Oswald acquitted, But would that be Justice?

In one sense, yes, because what a jury decides is “justice” by definition. But I could make the same argument about a clever prosecution team manipulating, diverting, and twisting the truth and having Oswald convicted.

[John Iacoletti]

With Charles presenting real evidence of how the court system works as compared to your fantasies the only conclusion that can be derived is, "Charles is kicking your Ass", you might not like it but it is a rock solid fact.

I rest my case.

One LN evangelist thinks another LN evangelist makes a better argument.

Stop the presses.