Is the amount of effort to link Oswald to Hidell believable?

[John Iacoletti]

Nope, not playing your game.

“Richard” claimed that a rifle having the same serial number as the one found in the Depository was delivered to Oswald’s PO Box, and if it wasn’t then a massive conspiracy was required.

There is in fact no evidence for either claim. If you’re going to go down another rabbit-hole of speculation you can do it without my help.

[Richard Smith]

At first studying the the ins and outs of the assassination was what was most interesting but now that pales next to the crazy mental gymnastics on display from these contrarians, and watching them make the most outrageous suggestions and conclusions is as you say "comedy gold".

JohnM

It is truly amazing that the contrarian brothers can attack the evidence of Oswald's guilt on the one hand as the potential product of fabrication, and then turn around without missing a beat to contend that they are not suggesting a conspiracy.   If "PP" is circled on Klein's form indicating that they shipped a rifle via parcel post to Oswald's PO Box, the contrarians argue this doesn't prove they shipped the rifle.  We are told that "anyone" could have circled PP or wrote the serial number of the rifle on the form.  Who and why these mysterious people are doing this if not part of a conspiracy to frame Oswald?  We will never know because that is where the contrarians go down the endless circular rabbit hole of lunacy.  We are told they aren't claiming anything and have no burden of proof.  Why?  Because they recognize the absurdity of these alternative explanations having any validity.  They don't want to defend them because they make no sense, lack even a scintilla of support, and are otherwise entirely baseless.  It is defense attorney nonsense.

[Martin Weidmann]

It is truly amazing that the contrarian brothers can attack the evidence of Oswald's guilt on the one hand as the potential product of fabrication, and then turn around without missing a beat to contend that they are not suggesting a conspiracy.   If "PP" is circled on Klein's form indicating that they shipped a rifle via parcel post to Oswald's PO Box, the contrarians argue this doesn't prove they shipped the rifle.  We are told that "anyone" could have circled PP or wrote the serial number of the rifle on the form.  Who and why these mysterious people are doing this if not part of a conspiracy to frame Oswald?  We will never know because that is where the contrarians go down the endless circular rabbit hole of lunacy.  We are told they aren't claiming anything and have no burden of proof.  Why?  Because they recognize the absurdity of these alternative explanations having any validity.  They don't want to defend them because they make no sense, lack even a scintilla of support, and are otherwise entirely baseless.  It is defense attorney nonsense.

Says the pseudo prosecutor who simply can not demonstrate that Waldman 7 is an authentic document.

It is truly amazing that the contrarian brothers can attack the evidence of Oswald's guilt on the one hand as the potential product of fabrication,

Asking for authentication of the evidence is, in an LN mind, "attacking the evidence"?  HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Steve M. Galbraith]

It is truly amazing that the contrarian brothers can attack the evidence of Oswald's guilt on the one hand as the potential product of fabrication, and then turn around without missing a beat to contend that they are not suggesting a conspiracy.   If "PP" is circled on Klein's form indicating that they shipped a rifle via parcel post to Oswald's PO Box, the contrarians argue this doesn't prove they shipped the rifle.  We are told that "anyone" could have circled PP or wrote the serial number of the rifle on the form.  Who and why these mysterious people are doing this if not part of a conspiracy to frame Oswald?  We will never know because that is where the contrarians go down the endless circular rabbit hole of lunacy.  We are told they aren't claiming anything and have no burden of proof.  Why?  Because they recognize the absurdity of these alternative explanations having any validity.  They don't want to defend them because they make no sense, lack even a scintilla of support, and are otherwise entirely baseless.  It is defense attorney nonsense.

This evidence or material or information or data (whatever term one wants to use) exists. How did it come to be? How was it created? Who made it?  It's either the creation of the company or, more accurately, people working for it or it was the creation of someone else. Some thing or some body made it. It's not in a quantum world of existing and not existing (although who knows, that may be their next idea).

So who made it? We say it was Kleins. They say? They won't answer. They can't answer, as you point out, because an alternate answer exposes the absurdity of their claims that it's not authentic, of their attempts to make it disappear. It exists. It's either authentic or faked. If it's not authentic then it's faked. By who? The honest conspiracists give us an answer: "the government".  The not so honest conspiracists give us silence.

[Martin Weidmann]

This evidence or material or information or data (whatever term one wants to use) exists. How did it come to be? How was it created? Who made it?  It's either the creation of the company or, more accurately, people working for it or it was the creation of someone else. Some thing or some body made it. It's not in a quantum world of existing and not existing (although who knows, that may be their next idea).

So who made it? We say it was Kleins. They say? They won't answer. They can't answer, as you point out, because an alternate answer exposes the absurdity of their claims that it's not authentic, of their attempts to make it disappear. It exists. It's either authentic or faked. If it's not authentic then it's faked. By who? The honest conspiracists give us an answer: "the government".  The not so honest conspiracists give us silence.

And there's another one who thinks you can assume evidence is authentic unless it's proven not to be. It's just one more variation of the "I am right, unless you prove me wrong" mantra.

It's either authentic or faked. If it's not authentic then it's faked.

Indeed.... and now it's up to you to prove it's authentic. Go ahead....

[John Iacoletti]

It is truly amazing that the contrarian brothers can attack the evidence of Oswald's guilt on the one hand as the potential product of fabrication, and then turn around without missing a beat to contend that they are not suggesting a conspiracy.

Typical “Richard” BS. You haven’t provided any “evidence of Oswald’s guilt” — just a bunch of false or unsubstantiated claims. And even if Klein’s did ship C2766 to PO Box 2915 (which you certainly have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt), it doesn’t just follow that Oswald used it to kill Kennedy.

If "PP" is circled on Klein's form indicating that they shipped a rifle via parcel post to Oswald's PO Box, the contrarians argue this doesn't prove they shipped the rifle.  We are told that "anyone" could have circled PP or wrote the serial number of the rifle on the form.  Who and why these mysterious people are doing this if not part of a conspiracy to frame Oswald?

All we’re saying is that a circled “PP” on a copy of a piece of paper with undemonstrable provenance does not prove that something was shipped through the postal service. The rest of this conspiracy rabbit hole is all yours. You can’t provide any evidence for your claim so you try to divert by shifting. It’s prosecuting attorney nonsense.

We will never know because that is where the contrarians go down the endless circular rabbit hole of lunacy.  We are told they aren't claiming anything and have no burden of proof.  Why?  Because they recognize the absurdity of these alternative explanations having any validity.

What’s so “absurd” about recognizing that evidence needs to be authenticated to be valid and reliable? You can’t do it, so you blame the messenger.

[John Iacoletti]

This evidence or material or information or data (whatever term one wants to use) exists. How did it come to be? How was it created? Who made it?  It's either the creation of the company or, more accurately, people working for it or it was the creation of someone else. Some thing or some body made it. It's not in a quantum world of existing and not existing (although who knows, that may be their next idea).

So who made it? We say it was Kleins. They say? They won't answer. They can't answer, as you point out, because an alternate answer exposes the absurdity of their claims that it's not authentic, of their attempts to make it disappear. It exists. It's either authentic or faked. If it's not authentic then it's faked. By who? The honest conspiracists give us an answer: "the government".  The not so honest conspiracists give us silence.

If you want to claim that Klein’s made it and it means what you want it to mean, then the burden is on you.

There is nothing dishonest about saying “I don’t know” when you don’t actually know. Just assuming the thing you want to believe is true is less honest.

So that’s the answer. I don’t know how Waldman 7 came to be, or what it means. And neither do you.