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

[Richard Smith]

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.

Exactly.  There is proof that Klein's shipped the rifle.  They produced a business record that indicates how and when they did so.  Any real or imagined burden of proof is satisfied by that document.  It is evidence of the event.  It exists as you noted.  No time machine is necessary to prove such events even in a criminal trial.  That is not a reasonable standard.  This is corroborated by the additional evidence in the case including that Oswald received a rifle in this timeframe, he is pictured holding the rifle, the rifle left at the crime scene (his place of employment) has the same serial number as the one Klein's indicates was sent to his PO Box, the DPD indicate that Oswald's prints were found on that rifle. No other rifle has ever been associated with Oswald in this timeframe.  There is no accounting for Oswald's rifle except as the one left at the TSBD.  The contrarian brothers just say it ain't so.  By implication they must believe that there is some alternative explanation for this evidence to explain these circumstances.  The burden of proof is now on them to explain away this evidence. But they won't even articulate an explanation much less provide any support for that conclusion.  It is complete lunacy. 

[John Iacoletti]

Exactly.  There is proof that Klein's shipped the rifle.  They produced a business record that indicates how and when they did so. 

What is your evidence that Klein’s produced the existing Waldman 7 picture?

This is corroborated by the additional evidence in the case including that Oswald received a rifle in this timeframe,

What is your evidence that Oswald received a rifle in this timeframe (whatever that means)?

he is pictured holding the rifle,

No, he is pictured holding a rifle that cannot be uniquely identified.

the rifle left at the crime scene (his place of employment)

You don’t know when it was “left”. Or by whom.

the DPD indicate that Oswald's prints were found on that rifle.

What “prints”? A single partial palmprint turned up a week later on an index card.

No other rifle has ever been associated with Oswald in this timeframe. 

Nor can this rifle be “associated with Oswald”.

There is no accounting for Oswald's rifle except as the one left at the TSBD. 

“Oswald’s rifle”. LOL.

The contrarian brothers just say it ain't so.

Wrong again “Richard”. You just haven’t proven it to be so. Claims aren’t proof.

By implication they must believe that there is some alternative explanation for this evidence to explain these circumstances.  The burden of proof is now on them to explain away this evidence.

Wrong again, “Richard”. The burden of proof is always on the one making the claim, not on anybody to “explain away” the claimant’s biased mischaracterization of the evidence or to prove whatever the claimant decides is implied by the dispute.

But they won't even articulate an explanation much less provide any support for that conclusion.  It is complete lunacy.

“I’m automatically right unless you can prove me wrong”, take 99999.

[John Mytton]

Nope, not playing your game.

Sorry John, but you don't make the rules.

Btw, why is it that you guys who always say that there doesn't have to be a "massive conspiracy" refuse to explore where your constant denials lead?

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

Sorry John, but you don't make the rules.

Of course I get to decide what and who I engage with. Deal with it.

Btw, why is it that you guys who always say that there doesn't have to be a "massive conspiracy" refuse to explore where your constant denials lead?

Pointing out the flaws in your arguments is not “denial”, and “where things lead” is nothing but more “Mytton” made-up stories masquerading as “where things lead”. We saw that with your garbage Hidell ID strawman. Anything other than your faith-based conclusions leads to massive conspiracy, by definition, because you won’t admit that your so-called “evidence” leads nowhere.

You’re not Socrates. Just make your point.