Oswald's lies proves his guilt.

[John Mytton]

In reply to the quoted part, but I realize you have problems keeping up...

I'm glad you know what you are talking about, because no one else does!
Care to try again?

JohnM

[John Mytton]

Have you considered changing your name to John Dunce?

Here you go:

A link to "kennedysandking"?, now I know you're joking. Thanks for the LOL's.

and backing further up:

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-evidence-is-the-conspiracy-index (section 4)

As i said you haven't posted anything, a possible virus filled external link is a waste of everybody's time.
Start again and use your own words, it's time to grow up.

JohnM

[John Mytton]

As i said you haven't posted anything

I know you're a pathological liar but I don't mind restating my question related to your unsupported claim:

So Klein's receives an order for a 36 inch rifle from a February issue (Dept. 358) in March but ships a 40 inch rifle listed in an April issue because "the next relevant month must be April."

Please provide quote(s) from the WCR to back up this claim and while you're at it how about some CE numbers for the ads you refer to?

Thanks.

Calm down Otto, I already answered your question and then you posted a link as a response, a link to information which was not written by you, how lame.

JohnM

[Jerry Freeman]

... a possible virus filled external link is a waste of everybody's time.

Right. How thoughtless it is to contaminate someone with objectiveness.

... it's time to grow up.

Patronizing isn't he?

[John Iacoletti]

Omg, not yet another "LOL" rebuttal, YAWN!

Stop presenting conjectures as facts and evidence, and I’ll stop LOLing.

[John Mytton]

I'm perfectly calm, thank you.

It's usually a waste of time reinventing the wheel that's why I provided the link to a handy paper detailing why the WC couldn't support their claims, the same problem you're facing now.

Your answer to my question, which BTW didn't address what I was asking, put forward yet another claim by stating "...Oswald ordered C20-T750 and Oswald received C20-T750."

Two problems here

1) You left out that he ordered C20-T750 from the February issue
2) There is zero evidence of C20-T750 (what ever that might be) was picked up by Oswald or even was delivered to his P.O. Box.

Claims piling up...

I'm perfectly calm, thank you.

If this is you when you're calm, I'd hate to see you when you're angry!

It's usually a waste of time reinventing the wheel that's why I provided the link to a handy paper detailing why the WC couldn't support their claims, the same problem you're facing now.

No, it's just better to present an argument in your own words.

Your answer to my question, which BTW didn't address what I was asking, put forward yet another claim by stating "...Oswald ordered C20-T750 and Oswald received C20-T750."

Let's be honest, all you are trying to do is invent a problem where there was no problem to begin with. The WC didn't have to address every time the wind changed direction, they just dealt with the facts.

1) You left out that he ordered C20-T750 from the February issue

No, in my first or second response to your I showed the following graphic. But what you keep leaving out is that Oswald didn't order his rifle in February.

2) There is zero evidence of C20-T750 (what ever that might be) was picked up by Oswald or even was delivered to his P.O. Box.

C20-T750 is the catalogue number that Kleins used for both the 36 and 40 inch Italian Carcano's and that fact is never going away.
The proof that Oswald received the rifle is that he ordered the rifle, he was photographed with the rifle, he left his prints on the rifle, the rifle was found with Oswald's prints and Oswald was identified on the 6th floor holding a rifle. How much evidence do you think was manufactured and how many liars, my narrative simply involves Oswald whereas yours involves half of Dallas.

Claims piling up...

No worries, keep em coming and let's see who else you can get involved in your massive conspiracy.

JohnM

[John Mytton]

Stop presenting conjectures as facts and evidence, and I’ll stop LOLing.

The facts and evidence in this case have been well established for many decades and the fact that you are still trying to argue otherwise 55 years later just proves my point. Thanks for your participation.

JohnM