I asked those who purport not to take issue with the bulk of the evidence a simple question. Just whether they believe the documentation that links Oswald to the MC rifle is fake or genuine. Nothing more or less. Why is that so difficult to answer? They could say it is genuine but for some unspecified reason don't believe it links Oswald to the rifle. I'm not sure how they square that rationale, though, since if it is genuine then it shows Oswald ordering a rifle from Klein's under an alias associated with him and being sent a specific rifle (the one with same serial number as that found on the 6th floor of the TSBD -- Oswald's place of employment). But that would be an answer even if it makes no apparent sense. Or they could say it is all fake. But dishonest posters contend it is somehow a loaded question to even answer whether they are contending whether the underlying documentation is genuine or fake. Much less support their position. They want to have it both ways. Suggesting the evidence is suspect but never having to own up to the implications. It's laughable in its intellectual dishonesty.
The (literally) loaded answer was the rifle found to be sporting the Oswald print on the barrel portion under the stock, along with shirt fiber found on the butt plate that couldn't be dismissed as being from Oswald's shirt.
Suggesting the evidence is suspect but never having to own up to the implications>>> It's the conspiracy-monger technique known as JAQing:
Just Asking Questions
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questionsJust asking questions (also known as JAQing off) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one's opponent; rather than laboriously having to prove that all politicians are reptoid scum, one can pull out one single odd piece of evidence and force the opponent to explain why the evidence is wrong.
The tactic is closely related to loaded questions or leading questions (which are usually employed when using it), Gish Gallops (when asking a huge number of rapid-fire questions without regard for the answers) and Argumentum ad nauseam (when asking the same question over and over in an attempt to overwhelm refutations).
It should be noted that accusing one's opponent of "just asking questions" is a common derailment tactic and a way of poisoning the well. Asking questions in and of itself is not invalid.
The subjective nature of this charge, and its consequent ripeness for abuse, means that deploying it can be a very inflammatory move. One side may put forward the accusation that the other side is cynically "just asking questions" and believe that they are acting in good faith, and the other side may equally strongly believe that they were asking genuine questions in good faith and the first person is the one acting in bad faith.
