Non problematic evidence?

[Bill Chapman]

In other words, there is no single piece of physical evidence, conclusively tied to Oswald, which is of such significance that it beyond reasonable doubt clearly points to his guilt?

Is that what you are saying?

I see you're back to projecting again...

Oswald embodies the entirety of the evidence.
Oswald himself is the evidence.
All packaged up..
 

Bill Chapman
Hunter of Trolls

[Martin Weidmann]

I have already examined the evidence. What is so difficult to understand about that statement?

I have already examined the evidence.

You just don't want to discuss it, right?

I wonder what you are afraid of?

Don't you want to discuss it for fear of possibly finding out that your conclusion(s) were wrong or don't you want to discuss it because you arrogantly feel that your conclusions are always the right ones, or perhaps both?

[John Iacoletti]

I have already examined the evidence. What is so difficult to understand about that statement?

That?s one theory. Another would be that you can?t actually justify your state of convincedness with anything besides an appeal to authority.

[Charles Collins]

That?s one theory. Another would be that you can?t actually justify your state of convincedness with anything besides an appeal to authority.

I have examined the evidence from several points of view. First several CT viewpoints , then the official report, several LN viewpoints,  my own research, viewpoints of forum discussion, etc

Your theory has no evidence to support it.

[Martin Weidmann]

I have examined the evidence from several points of view. First several CT viewpoints , then the official report, several LN viewpoints,  my own research, viewpoints of forum discussion, etc

Your theory has no evidence to support it.

Your theory has no evidence to support it.

That's rich, since you have no clue if John even has a theory and what it is. 

It's also ignorant and arrogant at the same time. The only theory that actually presents conclusions not supported by the evidence is the WCR.

[Charles Collins]

Your theory has no evidence to support it.

That's rich, since you have no clue if John even has a theory and what it is. 

It's also ignorant and arrogant at the same time. The only theory that actually presents conclusions not supported by the evidence is the WCR.

If you would stop jumping to conclusions and actually read his post, you might be able to see that I was referring to his stated theory regarding me.

[Martin Weidmann]

If you would stop jumping to conclusions and actually read his post, you might be able to see that I was referring to his stated theory regarding me.

As I said before; you need to improve your communication skills, so that people know what you mean and do not have to be mind readers that jump to conclusions.

As far as "his stated theory" goes, all John presented was "another theory"... He never said it was his, but he might just as well as there is plenty of evidence for it.