If I Had Planned The Conspiracy ...

[Martin Weidmann]

He's gone from demanding "credible evidence" to now demanding "conclusive evidence." We don't use that standard in a court of law much less a court of history. It's an absurd standard that if applied to the conspiracy advocates (who repeatedly get a pass from this person who says he has no opinion on what happened) would render them speechless.

"Conclusive" to him meaning proving it was not "possible" that the evidence was faked. That is, having to prove a negative, the same thing - prove a negative - that he admitted was a stupid standard just yesterday.

He's gone from demanding "credible evidence" to now demanding "conclusive evidence." We don't use that standard in a court of law much less a court of history.

What an ignorant statement to make. Conclusive means credible evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, which is exactly the standard used in a criminal court of law. The court of history is an entirely different thing. It's basically meaningless as it deals only with opinions.

"Conclusive" to him meaning proving it was not "possible" that the evidence was faked.

In what kind of fantasy world do you live? Conclusive means that it needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt that evidence is in fact authentic.

That is, having to prove a negative, the same thing - prove a negative - that he admitted was a stupid standard just yesterday.

You are cleary way out of your league. Asking for authentication of evidence is not the same as proving a negative. The biggest mistake LNs make is to assume that evidence is authentic unless proven otherwise.
In the real world it doesn't work that way!

[Martin Weidmann]

Rent free in your head...... 

[David Von Pein]

To demand that anybody, CT or not, prove that a document is not authentic, when the original of that same document is either buried deep in the National Archives or simply does not exist, and thus is not available for scrutiny, is not only disingenuous but also utterly dishonest. Secondly, to flip the coin, given that the original evidence is not available for examination, why is it that any LN can claim it's authentic without having been able to examine it? You demand proof from a CT but you accept without question that any authenticity claim of a LN is genuine. Could this be the "true believers" cult at work?

No, it's merely an attempt to put all the "rifle" evidence together.

I'm utilizing the only evidence that has EVER been available to researchers or the FBI or the Warren Commission for the rifle-purchasing records.

You know full well that Klein's didn't save the ORIGINAL documents for any of the orders it filled in 1963. When they received an order, all of the paperwork connected with that order was transferred to microfilm for easy compact storage. (You surely don't think the idea of storing orders on microfilm is "suspicious" or "conspiratorial" in some fashion, do you?)

And since I've never belonged to that popular CTer fraternity known as the "All The Evidence Looks Suspicious To Me And Therefore I Get To Believe It Was Probably Tampered With" club, and since those Klein's records for the Hidell/Oswald rifle purchase were found just exactly where they were supposed to be found---among the Klein's internal files in Chicago, Illinois---I, therefore, have absolutely no valid reason to think that those microfilmed records are anything but legitimate documents relating to the sale of one Carcano rifle by Klein's Sporting Goods to Lee H. Oswald (aka A. Hidell).

The logical "reasonable inference" here is this one....

The rifle we see Oswald holding in the 3/31/63 backyard photographs and the rifle with the serial number C2766 stamped on it that was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD on 11/22/63 is the same rifle that Klein's shipped to Oswald on March 20, 1963 (which is the exact same "C2766" rifle referred to in the Klein's documents).

Any other "inference" is just plain silly and far-fetched.

Show me a LN and I'll show you somebody who thinks all his opinions are "reasonable LN inferences"!

Well, of course! That's only natural. What would you expect, for Pete sake? Would you actually think that an LNer who believes he has a solid argument regarding a matter in dispute is going to think he has LOST the argument to a CTer (who is, after all, a person who has nothing but his imagination and speculation about tons of "fake evidence" to work with)??!

Is your middle initial D, Martin? (As in Duh!)

And the merry-go-round continues to grind away....

[Martin Weidmann]

No, it's merely common sense at work. I'm utilizing the only evidence that has EVER been available to researchers or the FBI or the WC for the rifle-purchasing records.

You know full well that Klein's didn't save the ORIGINAL documents for any of the orders it filled in 1963. When they received an order, all of the paperwork connected with that order was transferred to microfilm for easy compact storage. (You surely don't think the idea of storing orders on microfilm is "suspicious" or "conspiratorial" in some fashion, do you?)

And since I've never belonged to that popular CTer fraternity known as the "All The Evidence Looks Suspicious To Me And Therefore I Get To Believe It Was Probably Tampered With" club, and since those Klein's records for the Hidell/Oswald rifle purchase were positively found just exactly where they were supposed to be found---among the Klein's internal files in Chicago, Illinois---I, therefore, have absolutely no good or valid reason to think that those microfilmed records are anything but legitimate documents relating to the March 1963 sale of one Carcano rifle by Klein's Sporting Goods to Lee H. Oswald (aka A. Hidell).


Well, of course! That's only natural. What would you expect, for Pete sake? Would you actually think that an LNer who believes he has a solid argument regarding a matter in dispute is going to think he has LOST the argument to a CTer (who is, after all, a person who has nothing but his imagination and speculation about tons of "fake evidence" to work with)??!

Is your middle initial D, Martin? (As in Duh!)

And the merry-go-round continues to grind away....

No, it's merely common sense at work.

Common sense is an opinion. It has nothing to do with authenticated conclusive evidence. Common sense is in fact frequently used as a substitute for a total lack of credible evidence.

I'm utilizing the only evidence that has EVER been available to researchers or the FBI or the WC for the rifle-purchasing records.

So am I, so how come we have not reached the same conclusion?

You know full well that Klein's didn't save the ORIGINAL documents for any of the orders it filled in 1963. When they received an order, all of the paperwork connected with that order was transferred to microfilm for easy compact storage. (You surely don't think the idea of storing orders on microfilm is "suspicious" or "conspiratorial" in some fashion, do you?)

No, the way Klein's normally used to store the orders on microfilm is not suspicious or conspiratorial at all, but I never claimed that Klein's forged or falsified any document.

And since I've never belonged to that popular CTer fraternity known as the "All The Evidence Looks Suspicious To Me And Therefore I Get To Believe It Was Probably Tampered With" club,

No, you belong and have always belonged to the "Oswald did it alone no matter that the evidence doesn't support that conclusion" club

and since those Klein's records for the Hidell/Oswald rifle purchase were positively found just exactly where they were supposed to be found---among the Klein's internal files in Chicago, Illinois---I, therefore, have absolutely no good or valid reason to think that those microfilmed records are anything but legitimate documents relating to the March 1963 sale of one Carcano rifle by Klein's Sporting Goods to Lee H. Oswald (aka A. Hidell).

Well, that's where we part ways, because there are many ways to manipulate evidence. Let's for the sake of argument say that Oswald did in fact write the Hidell order form, but he was manipulated in doing so? Ever thought about that possibility, or do you simply dismiss it as an impossibility?

Well, of course! That's only natural. What would you expect, for Pete sake? Would you actually think that an LNer who believes he has a solid argument regarding a matter in dispute is going to think he has LOST the argument to a CTer (who is, after all, a person who has nothing but his imagination and speculation about tons of "fake evidence" to work with)??!

This is exactly why two worlds will never meet. Niel deGrasse Tyson once said; what if you know just enough about a subject to think you are right, but not enough about that subject to know you are wrong!

Let's just take one example; the Backyard photos. I believe they are authentic, as I am sure you do as well, but for you they somehow prove that Oswald owned a Carcano rifle in March 1963, and for me they only prove that Oswald was photographed holding a rifle. Now tell me, why are you right and I am wrong?

[Tom Graves]

Galbraith: You have literally written hundreds if not thousands of posts here demanding that lone assassin believers PROVE that the evidence against Oswald wasn't faked or planted.

Weidmann: I have questioned the evidence and asked for authentication. That's not the same as asking for proof that the evidence wasn't faked or planted.

My question: What's your definition of "authentication" in the context of the evidence against Oswald?

[Martin Weidmann]

The logical "reasonable inference" here is this one....

The rifle we see Oswald holding in the 3/31/63 backyard photographs and the rifle with the serial number C2766 stamped on it that was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD on 11/22/63 is the same rifle that Klein's shipped to Oswald on March 20, 1963 (which is the exact same "C2766" rifle referred to in the Klein's documents).

Any other "inference" is just plain silly and far-fetched.

So, you added this to your post two minutes after I asked the question.... How disappointing.

But I'll reply to it anyway.

The rifle we see Oswald holding in the 3/31/63 backyard photographs and the rifle with the serial number C2766 stamped on it that was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD on 11/22/63 is the same rifle that Klein's shipped to Oswald on March 20, 1963 (which is the exact same "C2766" rifle referred to in the Klein's documents).

There is not a shred of evidence that shows the rifle that Oswald is holding in the backyard photos has the serial number C2766 on it and/or that it was ever found on the 6th floor of the TSBD. There is also no evidence that it's the same rifle Klein's allegedly shipped to Oswald.

Your entire claim is nothing more than contrived conjecture motivated by wishful thinking.

Do you have proof that shows the rifle Oswald is holding in the photographs has the serial number C2766 on it?
Do you have proof that shows that the rifle Oswald is holding in the photographs is the same one that was found at the TSBD?
 
Any other "inference" is just plain silly and far-fetched.

Does this mean that you completely dismiss the possibility that Oswald was manipulated and, if so, what is your dismissal based on?

[Tom Graves]

There is not a shred of evidence that shows the rifle that Oswald is holding in the backyard photos has the serial number C2766 on it and/or that it was ever found on the 6th floor of the TSBD. There is also no evidence that it's the same rifle Klein's allegedly shipped to Oswald.

Going from memory here, but weren't some marks that are visible on the Carcano in the photos matched with marks on the Carcano that was found on the sixth floor?