Non problematic evidence?

[Martin Weidmann]

You might as well have

Really?

I actually lowered the bar and purposely did not ask for anything more than the naming of a piece of physical evidence conclusively linked to Oswald that clearly points to his guilt, but it seems even that bar was too high for the LNs

[Bill Chapman]

Really?

I actually lowered the bar and purposely did not ask for anything more than the naming of a piece of physical evidence conclusively linked to Oswald that clearly points to his guilt, but it seems even that bar was too high for the LNs

Not too high, not if any of you were in any way reasonable, even in the slightest.

The way you characters practically need to have caught Oswald with his pants down (so-to-speak) right there in the SN firing the Carcano pretty much drives the CT standard of proof bar clear out of the known universe.

[John Iacoletti]

Name one LNer who claims any one piece of evidence, on it's own, would convict.

Name one LN-er who ever says what specific evidence he uses to conclude that Oswald did it.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

I reviewed the testimony of Tomlinson pasting some here.
 http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/tomlinso.htmI have questions too.
Why did the Secret Service need to interview Tomlinson a week after the FBI did?
Seems like the president's body guards were more conscientious/diligent after he was killed than they ever were before hand.
Questions alright...that the Commission should have answered.

As JFK said, if someone wanted to shoot him with a rifle from a tall building there was nothing anyone could do about it. That is unless the President would stop traveling in an open limo; which is what happened after the assassination.

Did the SS perform poorly? Yes, it certainly appears so but I'm not sure they could have stopped Oswald - who I think shot JFK - from killing the president.

As to my questions: It's pretty obvious - at least to me - that it would be impossible to plant create or produce the right, e.g., size, shape, condition, bullet that fit the scenario BEFORE knowledge of the actual shooting was obtained. How could any "planters" foresee or predict what would happen? How could they be sure that the bullet they planted wouldn't be an extra one, one that would show their conspiracy? How could they know that the bullet that did hit JFK didn't fragment so that their phony bullet would expose their acts? There's a whole series of outcomes of the actual shooting that they couldn't know about.

Besides, the bullet that exited JFK's throat/neck had to go somewhere. Where did it go?

[John Iacoletti]

Gosh, if only there was something to distinguish Oswald from other men who may have left their rings at home that day. What could it be?

Congratulations.  You've just demonstrated that the wedding ring is irrelevant.  If it's about other "evidence" then the ring has nothing to do with it.

Something about, I don't know, working in the building where a shooter shot JFK?

So did scores of other people.  Were any of them even asked about their wedding rings?

Maybe, perhaps, something about carrying a large package into the building?

You mean the package that was too short to hold the alleged murder weapon?  I suspect lots of employees carried in packages that were too short to hold the alleged murder weapon.

Something about leaving nearly all of his money behind that day?

You mean the way he left money for Marina every time he visited?

Something about holding radical anti-US views?

Something about admiring JFK and thinking he was doing a very good job.

No, we're supposed to ignore all of that and just think about the ring.

Why wouldn't we ignore all that?  It's not evidence of anything.

[John Iacoletti]

And, if CE 399 isn't the bullet that went through JFK, then where IS that bullet? Did it disappear?

Where is the bullet from the "first missed shot"?  Did it disappear?

[John Iacoletti]

Not too high, not if any of you were in any way reasonable, even in the slightest.

And by "reasonable", Bill means agreeing with his unsubstantiated conclusion.