A question for Martin Weidmann

[Tom Graves]

Dear Martin,

Since you don't trust any of the evidence against Oswald, what percentage of it do you think (sic) was fabricated by the bad guys compared to "just some really weird coincidence"?

80% versus 20%?

90% versus 10%?

100%?


-- Tom

[Martin Weidmann]

Dear Martin,

Since you don't trust any of the evidence against Oswald, what percentage of it do you think (sic) was fabricated by the bad guys compared to "just some really weird coincidence"?

80% versus 20%?

90% versus 10%?

100%?


-- Tom

It's not a matter of trust. Evidence is either authentic or it isn't.

I can't help it that fools like you are willing to consider just about anything you like as solid evidence even if there is no authentication

[Tom Graves]

It's not a matter of trust. Evidence is either authentic or it isn't.

I can't help it that fools like you are willing to consider just about anything you like as solid evidence even if there is no authentication

Dear Martin,

Roughly how much of it is "inauthentic" because it was fabricated or "fudged" by the bad guys, and roughly how much of it is "inauthentic" because it was the result of some really, really quirky twist of fate?

Almost all of it was fabricated by the bad guys, right?

-- Tom

[John Corbett]

Regardless of what percentage of the evidence conspiracy hobbyists think was fabricated, my question is why does the fabricated evidence point to same guy as the genuine evidence?

[Martin Weidmann]

Regardless of what percentage of the evidence conspiracy hobbyists think was fabricated, my question is why does the fabricated evidence point to same guy as the genuine evidence?

Does it? Or is it just the narrative that relies on evidence that doesn't actually support their claims?

For many pieces of evidence there are more than one explanation, so if you just pick one and build your claim on that, does that make your claim credible?