JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
How did Oswald get the job at the TSBD
Bill Chapman:
--- Quote from: Martin Weidmann on March 13, 2018, 10:13:47 PM ---Pretty obvious why Bugs would say that.
Just image what would happen when serious people take a closer look at the "evidence", or (even worse) they start asking questions for which credible explanations are required, right?
Can't have that, now can we?...... Whatever happened to the good old days when gullible people accepted that Oswald killed Kennedy because he left his wedding ring in a cup?
--- End quote ---
'because he left his wedding ring in a cup'
> Guilty based on just that? You cannot be serious.
I've never claimed that the wedding ring thing would be enough to convict.
Martin Weidmann:
--- Quote from: Bill Chapman on March 14, 2018, 05:41:49 AM ---'because he left his wedding ring in a cup'
> Guilty based on just that? You cannot be serious.
I've never claimed that the wedding ring thing would be enough to convict.
--- End quote ---
Check with Bugs. It's one of his 53 pieces of "evidence" that he claims point to Oswald's guilt.
Wesley Johnson:
--- Quote from: Martin Weidmann on March 13, 2018, 04:39:14 PM ---Of course you believe the rifle was linked to Oswald, you are just not certain enough to claim he owned it, right?
I'm just curious which rifle you are talking about. The one he allegedly bought from Klein's under an alias or the one seen in the photo?
Also, let me ask you again; what exactly do you think it means that Oswald was photographed with a rifle and a revolver in late March 1963?
--- End quote ---
Come on Martin this is getting droll. I do believe the evidence that linked Oswald to the rifle and all of the other hard, physical, ballistic evidence. I find it very amusing how the CTers operate. When asked for physical, ballistic evidence, all they do is try and show any discrepancies in the real evidence and claim "it proves conspiracy", without ever producing any evidence, no rifle, no bullets, no fragments and no prints or anything at all to show a second gunman. But it does keep me laughing.
Martin Weidmann:
--- Quote from: Wesley Johnson on March 14, 2018, 03:12:51 PM ---
Come on Martin this is getting droll. I do believe the evidence that linked Oswald to the rifle and all of the other hard, physical, ballistic evidence. I find it very amusing how the CTers operate. When asked for physical, ballistic evidence, all they do is try and show any discrepancies in the real evidence and claim "it proves conspiracy", without ever producing any evidence, no rifle, no bullets, no fragments and no prints or anything at all to show a second gunman. But it does keep me laughing.
--- End quote ---
You seem to be complaining more about the way CTs operate then you are answering simple questions. Why is that?
I do believe the evidence that linked Oswald to the rifle and all of the other hard, physical, ballistic evidence.
Of course you do, but such a blanket statement doesn't tell me much and you seem unable or unwilling to explain in more detail what you are talking about. I really would like to know what you consider to be "hard, physical, ballistic evidence". For me, solid (physical and/or ballistic) evidence is conclusive, persuasive and able to hold up to close scrutiny.
I think I have a good idea why you are so reluctant to answer my simple straight forward question, but I'll ask it again anyway;
What exactly do you think it means that Oswald was photographed with a rifle and a revolver in late March 1963?
A straight forward answer will do. I already know how you feel about CTs
Wesley Johnson:
--- Quote from: Martin Weidmann on March 14, 2018, 04:15:06 PM ---You seem to be complaining more about the way CTs operate then you are answering simple questions. Why is that?
I do believe the evidence that linked Oswald to the rifle and all of the other hard, physical, ballistic evidence.
Of course you do, but such a blanket statement doesn't tell me much and you seem unable or unwilling to explain in more detail what you are talking about. I really would like to know what you consider to be "hard, physical, ballistic evidence". For me, solid (physical and/or ballistic) evidence is conclusive, persuasive and able to hold up to close scrutiny.
I think I have a good idea why you are so reluctant to answer my simple straight forward question, but I'll ask it again anyway;
What exactly do you think it means that Oswald was photographed with a rifle and a revolver in late March 1963?
A straight forward answer will do. I already know how you feel about CTs
--- End quote ---
Very simple Martin. I believe the photo shows Oswald was in possession of a rifle and revolver. The original thread was how he got the job. So, do you believe how I stated he got the job at the TSBD. And if you are going to try and say the photo was faked you will have a hard time. That photo has been tested every way possible and found to be authentic. Your turn. ;D
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version