The preponderance of the evidence

[John Iacoletti]

Thanks Jack.  The list of LN excuses for inconsistent or contradictory evidence is both long and legendary.

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,100.0.html

[Paul May]

The evidence is in the official report. You are the one who apparently believes that it is wrong. What evidence do you have to the contrary?

Charles, I?ve asked this question of the truthers for some 50 years.  They NEVER answer.  They can?t. Not one piece of hard, credible evidence for conspiracy exists.  They don?t care.  They each have their pet theory.  The best arguments are between the kooks themselves. Yet, history should be debated, not argued. They cannot debate it.  They have no evidence.

[Paul May]

As far as I can tell, the only direct evidence that Oswald was in the 6th floor TSBD window at 12:30 with a rifle was testimony from Howard Brennan who initially failed to identify him in a police lineup (even after seeing Oswald's picture on television).  A guy who claimed to see a gunman in position for the head shot (which necessarily would be crouching behind boxes) "from the belt up", and who gave a description that was the wrong weight, wrong age, wrong height, and wrong clothing description for it to be Oswald.

Circumstantial evidence

1. Frazier saw Oswald carrying a bag that was too short to have contained the alleged murder weapon, and a bag that Frazier said was not the same bag was allegedly found near the window the shots were allegedly fired from, but doesn't appear in any crime scene photographs.

2. The bag that was allegedly found (and showed no evidence of ever having contained a rifle) supposedly had two prints on it belonging to Oswald, but the testing process destroyed the prints.

3. Backyard photos exist that were allegedly taken 8 months earlier showing Oswald holding a rifle that may or may not be the rifle found on the sixth floor.

4. Marina peered in the end of a rolled up and tied blanket in the Paine's garage about 6 weeks earlier and saw a portion of what she took to be a rifle.

5. Oswald left work after the assassination, which some would like to think was a "consciousness of guilt", even though other employees were either dismissed or told not to re-enter the building.

6. Unscientific and biased handwriting "analysis" of 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy (from microfilm that is now "missing") of a 2-inch order blank concluded that the handwriting on a Klein's order blank ordering a similar but not identical rifle was that of Oswald's.

7. That order blank showed an address of a PO box that Oswald had access to, but there is no record of such a Klein's package being mailed, delivered, picked up, or signed for by Oswald or anyone else.

8. Fibers that may or may not have come from the shirt Oswald was arrested in were found in the butt of the rifle allegedly found on the 6th floor.

9. After the FBI found no identifiable prints on the rifle allegedly found on the 6th floor, an index card showed up a week later with a partial palmprint identified as Oswald's and claimed to have been lifted from the rifle on the night of the assassination, but not turned over to the FBI with the other evidence or even mentioned to the FBI agent who received the evidence.

10. Oswald's prints were found on book boxes on the sixth floor, which is not that remarkable considering his job was getting books out of boxes.


Your turn.  What evidence convinces you?

And here we go again!

[John Iacoletti]

Charles, I?ve asked this question of the truthers for some 50 years.  They NEVER answer.  They can?t. Not one piece of hard, credible evidence for conspiracy exists.  They don?t care.  They each have their pet theory.  The best arguments are between the kooks themselves. Yet, history should be debated, not argued. They cannot debate it.  They have no evidence.

As Martin Weidmann so aptly put it:

"All it takes not to see "hard credible" evidence is to dismiss whatever is being offered as not credible."

[John Iacoletti]

And here we go again!

Indeed.  To be an Oswald-did-it-ite is to never be willing to examine the evidence.  The attitude is, "the WC concluded it, I believe it, and that settles it.  Prove me wrong or I win."

[Charles Collins]

You're right, Mr Collins--we CTers don't know what happened that day. But neither do you. Your I-once-was-lost-but-now-I'm-found cognitive serenity (some would say smugness) is utterly misplaced. A bad theory that happens to be official and unchanging is no better than a bad theory that is unofficial and mutable. In key respects, it's actually worse because it puts its apologists into the position of lazy, bad-faith inflexibility and (at times) outright reality-denial.

The assassination of JFK remains a radically mysterious tragedy. Warren Gullibles are of use to the ongoing research effort only in the sense that the better ones are skilled at holding Warren Critics' feet to the fire. Other than that? You've all backed the wrong horse!

 

Hi Alan, thanks for the compliments. Hope that makes as much sense to you as your post does to me.

[Charles Collins]

You are correct that the preponderance of the evidence points to LHO being a patsy. Otherwise, all the evidence fits like a glove (not OJ's). The conspiracy being the concocted story that LHO was a lone nut assassin that just happened to get a job along the motorcade route a couple of weeks before Plan A in Chicago got scrubbed (see Thomas Arthur Vallee). All LNers are CTs (Coincidence Theorists) that scoff at all the evidence that suggests LHO was NOT a lone nut assassin.

The problem with you LNers is that the LN conspiracy hypothesis is untenable any way you slice it. It's the narrative of the conspirators that they want you shills to perpetuate. They rely on your gullibility, lack of critical thinking (or ethics) and lack of legal and logic skills, which is why John I destroys your arguments every time and drives the LNers insane. 

Hi Jack, thanks for the reply. Did you have anything of substance to say?