There are people out there straight-facedly saying Trump is unfairly accused...

I started reading it but stopped at this:

Another problem with the connection between Oswald and the Carcano is that nobody at Oswald's post office reported giving him a hefty package such as the kind in which a rifle would be shipped (Summers, p. 59; Meagher, p. 50). In fact, none of those postal workers reported ever giving Oswald any kind of a package.

What's the point of trying to reason with the guy? You spend a great deal of time responding to every ridiculous point that he makes. You have a great deal more patience than me.

Oswald's use of the alias "Alek Hidell" is not an allegation. It's an established fact. It's not just according to the Dallas police that he was carrying an "Alek J. Hidell" ID card when he was arrested. FBI agent Manning Clements documented the contents of his wallet that day.

The handwriting on the money order is Oswald's. That's a fact established by numerous questioned document experts who examined the actual money order itself. That money order proves that Oswald left his place of employment on the morning of March 12, 1963. He purchased that money order at the Ervay street post office. He lied on his timesheet.

The handwriting on the envelope and the order coupon is Oswald's. The Carcano rifle bearing serial number C2766 was shipped by Klein's to Oswald's PO box. Oswald had himself photographed holding that rifle. His palmprint was found on the barrel of it on Nov 22, 1963 by Lt Carl Day of the DPD.

Oswald ordered Klein's Sporting Goods catalog number C20-T750 and that's what he got.

MTG's unwillingness to accept those facts reflects poorly of his character.

Your entire article is nothing more than a litany of excuses for dismissing all that damning evidence against Oswald. If your excuses carried any weight, you should be able to put together a plausible alternative narrative that takes into account all that evidence including your pathetic excuses. We both know that no such plausible alternative narrative is possible or somebody would have come up with one by now. It's been almost 63 years since the assassination and no one has come close to developing a scenario that explains the entire body of evidence. CTs are in the business of explaining away the evidence as your article demonstrates.

Uh-huh. You bet. IOW, your scenario has been debunked by physical evidence, by scientific evidence, by rifle tests, by reenactments, and by numerous released documents, but it must still be true because no one has presented an alternative scenario that you are willing to accept. That's what you're saying.

How about if you write an article that responds to the points and evidence presented in my article? Hey? Oh, but in order to do that, you'd have to actually read my article.