Oswald's Escape Route Time Trial

[John Mytton]

Though such fibers could theoretically have come from another identical shirt, the prohibitive probability is that they came from Oswald’s shirt.

Translation: Let's disregard the fact that those fibers could have come from another source and let's just assume they came from Oswald's shirt because that's the most convenient option. 

Another important consideration is coincidence. When fibers that match the clothing fibers of the suspect are found on the clothing of a victim, two conclusions may be drawn: The fibers originated from the suspect, or the fibers originated from another fabric source that not only was composed of fibers of the exact type and color, but was also in a position to contribute those fibers through primary or secondary contact. The likelihood of encountering identical fibers from the environment of a homicide victim (i.e., from his or her residence or friends) is extremely remote.
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/july2000/deedric3.htm#Fiber%20Evidence:%20Assigning%20Significance

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Another important consideration is coincidence. When fibers that match the clothing fibers of the suspect are found on the clothing of a victim, two conclusions may be drawn: The fibers originated from the suspect, or the fibers originated from another fabric source that not only was composed of fibers of the exact type and color, but was also in a position to contribute those fibers through primary or secondary contact. The likelihood of encountering identical fibers from the environment of a homicide victim (i.e., from his or her residence or friends) is extremely remote.
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/july2000/deedric3.htm#Fiber%20Evidence:%20Assigning%20Significance

JohnM

More selfserving BS! Hilarious....

When fibers that match the clothing fibers of the suspect are found on the clothing of a victim, two conclusions may be drawn: The fibers originated from the suspect, or the fibers originated from another fabric source that not only was composed of fibers of the exact type and color, but was also in a position to contribute those fibers through primary or secondary contact.

Stombaugh claiming that the fibers found on the rifle "matched" those of Oswald's shirt isn't evidence that the fibers did actually come from Oswald's shirt. It's an unchallenged opinion of a biased prosecutorial expert.

Even worse, there is no evidence that Oswald ever was in a position to "contribute those fibers". That he was, is just another massive assumption based on other assumptions.

The bottom line is a simple one; as long as it can not be ruled out that the fibers came from another source, it can't be conclusively "concluded" that the fibers came from Oswald's shirts.

So, let's play this little game for a moment;

First it has to be assumed that a rifle that Marina Oswald may have seen in Ruth Paine's garage in late September 1963 belonged to Oswald
Then it has to be assumed that it was the MC rifle C2766 that was found at the TSBD
It also has to be assumed that Oswald had access to that particular rifle, during the nearly three months prior to November 23, and did dismantle the rifle without being seen or noticed by anybody in Ruth Paine's tiny house.
Then it has to be assumed that Oswald managed to bring that broken down rifle into the TSBD without anybody seeing it (btw if the fibers were already on the rifle before November 22, how did they manage to remain stuck to the rifle when it was allegedly being transported in a broken down condition in a paper bag?)
And then it has to be assumed that Oswald did wear the arrest shirt while working at the TSBD on Friday morning or did ever wear that shirt during one of his trips to Irving.

There isn't a shred of evidence for any of this

The possibility that all the above things happened without anybody seeing anything is extremely remote     

But I have to give you credit for at least trying.......

[John Mytton]

More selfserving BS! Hilarious....

When fibers that match the clothing fibers of the suspect are found on the clothing of a victim, two conclusions may be drawn: The fibers originated from the suspect, or the fibers originated from another fabric source that not only was composed of fibers of the exact type and color, but was also in a position to contribute those fibers through primary or secondary contact.

Stombaugh claiming that the fibers found on the rifle "matched" those of Oswald's shirt isn't evidence that the fibers did actually come from Oswald's shirt. It's an unchallenged opinion of a biased prosecutorial expert.

Even worse, there is no evidence that Oswald ever was in a position to "contribute those fibers". That he was, is just another massive assumption based on other assumptions.

The bottom line is a simple one; as long as it can not be ruled out that the fibers came from another source, it can't be conclusively "concluded" that the fibers came from Oswald's shirts.

So, let's play this little game for a moment;

First it has to be assumed that a rifle that Marina Oswald may have seen in Ruth Paine's garage in late September 1963 belonged to Oswald
Then it has to be assumed that it was the MC rifle C2766 that was found at the TSBD
It also has to be assumed that Oswald had access to that particular rifle, during the nearly three months prior to November 23, and did dismantle the rifle without being seen or noticed by anybody in Ruth Paine's tiny house.
Then it has to be assumed that Oswald managed to bring that broken down rifle into the TSBD without anybody seeing it (btw if the fibers were already on the rifle before November 22, how did they manage to remain stuck to the rifle when it was allegedly being transported in a broken down condition in a paper bag?)
And then it has to be assumed that Oswald did wear the arrest shirt while working at the TSBD on Friday morning or did ever wear that shirt during one of his trips to Irving.

There isn't a shred of evidence for any of this

The possibility that all the above things happened without anybody seeing anything is extremely remote     

But I have to give you credit for at least trying.......

Thank you for confirming that there is indeed a Mountain of Evidence.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Thank you for confirming that there is indeed a Mountain of Evidence.

JohnM

Disappointing....

but thank you for showing us so clearly that you consider speculative assumptions to be evidence.... 

And your inability to counter any of the points I have raised is duly noted as well.

[John Mytton]

Disappointing....

but thank you for showing us so clearly that you consider speculative assumptions to be evidence.... 

And your inability to counter any of the points I have raised is duly noted as well.

When you can prove to me that your tired, well worn "speculative assumptions" are not evidence then I may consider your ideas but until then, the Mountain of Evidence is impervious to your feeble attempts of refutation. Sorry about that!

JohnM

[Steve M. Galbraith]

When you can prove to me that your tired, well worn "speculative assumptions" are not evidence then I may consider your ideas but until then, the Mountain of Evidence is impervious to your feeble attempts of refutation. Sorry about that!

JohnM

"It's possible the fibers were planted. It's possible the backyard photos were faked. It's possible the prints were planted. It's possible the money order is fake. It's possible the envelope was faked. It's possible the Tippit eyewitnesses were wrong. It's possible the shells were switched. It's possible the revolver was planted. It's possible..it's possible...it's possible...."

At some point one would think a reasonably intelligent person - a supposed non-conspiracist at that - would take a step back, look at this and ask himself, "Is it really possible to fake all of this?"

[Martin Weidmann]

When you can prove to me that your tired, well worn "speculative assumptions" are not evidence then I may consider your ideas but until then, the Mountain of Evidence is impervious to your feeble attempts of refutation. Sorry about that!

JohnM

When you can prove to me that your tired, well worn "speculative assumptions" are not evidence

Huh? You seem to be confused, John. I don't have "tired, well worn "speculative assumptions". You have....

And, why would I have to prove a negative that is utterly self explanatory?

But if you really want to argue that your biased assumptions and speculations are actually evidence, go ahead. You're only exposing yourself as delusional.