Time for Truth

[John Iacoletti]

That's true, no one ever denied that someone else who was wearing clothes including pants, socks, underwear or even a handy rag, made up of Oswald's shirt fibres could have come into contact with C2766, hence the usage of "probability".

“Oswald’s shirt fibers”. LOL.

But, and this is very important, the probability of a random contact is as Bugliosi tells us, is prohibitive.

Bugliosi doesn’t know what the probability is.

At the end of the day, some random piece of material which contains not one but the same three threads with the same twists, same colour, same dye batch, same amount of fading, etc etc touched C2766

Nobody ever determined anything about “same dye batch” or “same amount of fading”. Shame on you.

The FBI agrees

The relevant information is that it cannot be determined what the source of the fibers was. Everything else here is typical “Mytton” exaggeration.

[John Mytton]

“Oswald’s shirt fibers”. LOL.

Bugliosi doesn’t know what the probability is.

Nobody ever determined anything about “same dye batch” or “same amount of fading”. Shame on you.

The relevant information is that it cannot be determined what the source of the fibers was. Everything else here is typical “Mytton” exaggeration.

So out of the hundreds or perhaps thousands of Carcano's available in America, and the thousands or perhaps millions of shirts available in America at the time, Oswald was just unlucky enough to own a Carcano which someone else's shirt fibers which incidentally just happened to match his own shirt fibers, just happened to touch Oswald's rifle?
What an unlucky son of a gun!
Maybe he should of purchased a Lottery ticket instead of Killing the President?

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

So out of the hundreds or perhaps thousands of Carcano's available in America, and the thousands or perhaps millions of shirts available in America at the time, Oswald was just unlucky enough to own a Carcano which someone else's shirt fibers which incidentally just happened to match his own shirt fibers, just happened to touch Oswald's rifle?
What an unlucky son of a gun!
Maybe he should of purchased a Lottery ticket instead of Killing the President?

JohnM

Oswald was just unlucky enough to own a Carcano

Prove that Oswald owned a Carcano and try not to use too many assumptions and leaps of faith!

[John Mytton]

Oswald was just unlucky enough to own a Carcano

Prove that Oswald owned a Carcano and try not to use too many assumptions and leaps of faith!

Hahahahahaha!

For the best part of a decade you have been desperately trying to prove that Oswald's rifle wasn't Oswald's rifle and so far you have been failing miserably, but do keep trying because your pathetic attempts are absolutely hilarious!

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Hahahahahaha!

For the best part of a decade you have been desperately trying to prove that Oswald's rifle wasn't Oswald's rifle and so far you have been failing miserably, but do keep trying because your pathetic attempts are absolutely hilarious!

JohnM

First of all, I have never been trying to prove that "Oswald's rifle" isn't Oswald's rifle. That's just another outright lie.

Secondly, you clearly can not prove that Oswald owned a Carcano, because if you could you would have shown it here instead of a pathetic attempt to pivot away from the question.

[John Mytton]

First of all, I have never been trying to prove that "Oswald's rifle" isn't Oswald's rifle. That's just another outright lie.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/prove

Using the above example;

Martin suspected that "Oswald's rifle" was not Oswald's rifle, but Martin could never prove it.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/prove

Using the above example;

Martin suspected that "Oswald's rifle" was not Oswald's rifle, but Martin could never prove it.

JohnM

When you start to do your usual song and dance it simply means that you can't back up your pathetic claim with actual evidence.

Ridicule doesn't help you. I don't need to prove it was not Oswald's rifle. I don't even have to suspect that it wasn't Oswald's rifle.

You claimed it was his rifle so you are the one who needs to prove it.

But don't bother because you will never be able to do so and any further posts from you about the subject will be an even bigger waste of time than they usually are.

The bottom line is a simple one;

"John Mytton" claimed that Oswald owned a Carcano but can not prove it.
"John Mytton" claimed Kleins' sent a rifle to Oswald but can not prove it
"John Mytton" falsely claimed that the HSCA photographic panel confirmed Oswald was holding C2677 in the BY photos but not only can't he prove it, he has been proven a liar

See the pattern?

Thanks for playing, Johnny