Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: The preponderance of the evidence  (Read 35958 times)

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
Re: The preponderance of the evidence
« Reply #192 on: April 05, 2019, 12:51:59 AM »
Advertisement
Thumb1:

 ???

These are just the JAQers/IOWers/CTrollers not to ignore.


Bill Chapman
Hunter of Trolls

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The preponderance of the evidence
« Reply #192 on: April 05, 2019, 12:51:59 AM »


Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3573
Re: The preponderance of the evidence
« Reply #193 on: April 05, 2019, 12:57:05 AM »
This is what I said:


No credible evidence of a conspiracy is why I believe he did it alone.

It was a response to Jack?s request. It is my opinion. The words ?I believe? are indicative of that.


Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
Re: The preponderance of the evidence
« Reply #194 on: April 05, 2019, 01:27:05 AM »
You've just underlined the fundamental flaw in jury based justice systems. How can anyone expect a "jury of your peers" to understand the legal nuances of a complicated civil or criminal court case to render an informed verdict? It's the reason the guilty get off and the innocent get the chair. OJ comes to mind.

Face it, your avg juror is simply not qualified to deliberate a court case and your avg LNer is not qualified to assess what constitutes a preponderance of evidence that Oswald was a lone nut assassin. Otherwise, cite 1 piece of evidence that convinces you that Oswald was a lone nut and not a patsy. We don't need a preponderance, just 1 will do.

From the CT POV: Oswald was a crappy shot with a crappy rifle and ammo. Do I have that right so far?
If so, I'd ask how would any framers would go about convincing anyone that he was believable as killer.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2019, 01:35:41 AM by Bill Chapman »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The preponderance of the evidence
« Reply #194 on: April 05, 2019, 01:27:05 AM »


Offline Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7322
Re: The preponderance of the evidence
« Reply #195 on: April 05, 2019, 02:02:30 AM »
From the CT POV: Oswald was a crappy shot with a crappy rifle and ammo. Do I have that right so far?
If so, I'd ask how would any framers would go about convincing anyone that he was believable as killer.

When you're J.Edna Hoover....You could say that Snidely Whiplash was the assassin and a large segment of the gullible pissants would believe it.

Offline Jack Trojan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 833
Re: The preponderance of the evidence
« Reply #196 on: April 05, 2019, 02:14:07 AM »
From the CT POV: Oswald was a crappy shot with a crappy rifle and ammo. Do I have that right so far?

No, you have it wrong. Oswald was probably a decent shot had he practiced, which all sharpshooters must do to keep sharp. If Oswald knew he was going to take some shots at the POTUS it was imperative that he was well practiced and familiar with a reliable rifle. The fact that Oswald was a military marksman meant he knew what would increase his odds of success. This included:

1) Get a Mauser, not a MC (which was probably only a few bucks more, but much more reliable. The MC tended to jam almost every clip)
2) Practice practice practice...then practice some more.
3) Sight-in your scope (the fact that it wasn't implies that Oswald never practiced with the rifle)
4) Do NOT disassemble/reassemble the rifle or you will have to zero the sights in the TSBD.
5) Remove the misaligned scope from the rifle if you don't intend to use it. It takes up less space in the paper bag and it's just in the way if you intend to use the iron sights.

A preponderance of the evidence implies that Oswald never took a shot with the MC. I still haven't got a satisfactory answer from the LNers how Oswald managed to not get a single print on the rifle's stock, bolt, barrel, scope, trigger, clip, shells and strap after he disassembled/reassembled the rifle and supposedly fired it 3 times. Why doesn't that give you LNers pause?

Quote
If so, I'd ask how would any framers would go about convincing anyone that he was believable as killer.

Because you LNers have been carrying the conspirators water for 56 years now. Congrats!
« Last Edit: April 05, 2019, 02:24:06 AM by Jack Trojan »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The preponderance of the evidence
« Reply #196 on: April 05, 2019, 02:14:07 AM »


Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
Re: The preponderance of the evidence
« Reply #197 on: April 05, 2019, 07:21:08 AM »
No, you have it wrong. Oswald was probably a decent shot had he practiced, which all sharpshooters must do to keep sharp. If Oswald knew he was going to take some shots at the POTUS it was imperative that he was well practiced and familiar with a reliable rifle. The fact that Oswald was a military marksman meant he knew what would increase his odds of success. This included:

1) Get a Mauser, not a MC (which was probably only a few bucks more, but much more reliable. The MC tended to jam almost every clip)
2) Practice practice practice...then practice some more.
3) Sight-in your scope (the fact that it wasn't implies that Oswald never practiced with the rifle)
4) Do NOT disassemble/reassemble the rifle or you will have to zero the sights in the TSBD.
5) Remove the misaligned scope from the rifle if you don't intend to use it. It takes up less space in the paper bag and it's just in the way if you intend to use the iron sights.

A preponderance of the evidence implies that Oswald never took a shot with the MC. I still haven't got a satisfactory answer from the LNers how Oswald managed to not get a single print on the rifle's stock, bolt, barrel, scope, trigger, clip, shells and strap after he disassembled/reassembled the rifle and supposedly fired it 3 times. Why doesn't that give you LNers pause?

Because you LNers have been carrying the conspirators water for 56 years now. Congrats!

You're assuming Oswald planned to assassinate JFK months in advance.

The science as to why finding usable prints on weapons in shooting crimes can be so difficult is readily available online.

No usable prints found where they would normally expect to be found, and removed, suggests that the shooter took a few seconds to wipe down said areas... in a 'this-is-my-rifle-this-my-gun' sense.


.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2019, 07:41:28 AM by Bill Chapman »

Offline Ray Mitcham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 994
Re: The preponderance of the evidence
« Reply #198 on: April 05, 2019, 09:56:04 AM »
"No usable prints found where they would normally expect to be found, and removed, suggests that the shooter took a few seconds to wipe down said areas... "

Does this include taking time to collect the bullet shells from their various positions in the SN, and wiping them clean, Chappers?
And how do you load a clip with bullets without getting either thumb or fingerprint on the shells? Use gloves? ;D
« Last Edit: April 05, 2019, 09:56:49 AM by Ray Mitcham »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The preponderance of the evidence
« Reply #198 on: April 05, 2019, 09:56:04 AM »


Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3573
Re: The preponderance of the evidence
« Reply #199 on: April 05, 2019, 02:29:26 PM »
No, you have it wrong. Oswald was probably a decent shot had he practiced, which all sharpshooters must do to keep sharp. If Oswald knew he was going to take some shots at the POTUS it was imperative that he was well practiced and familiar with a reliable rifle. The fact that Oswald was a military marksman meant he knew what would increase his odds of success. This included:

1) Get a Mauser, not a MC (which was probably only a few bucks more, but much more reliable. The MC tended to jam almost every clip)
2) Practice practice practice...then practice some more.
3) Sight-in your scope (the fact that it wasn't implies that Oswald never practiced with the rifle)
4) Do NOT disassemble/reassemble the rifle or you will have to zero the sights in the TSBD.
5) Remove the misaligned scope from the rifle if you don't intend to use it. It takes up less space in the paper bag and it's just in the way if you intend to use the iron sights.

A preponderance of the evidence implies that Oswald never took a shot with the MC. I still haven't got a satisfactory answer from the LNers how Oswald managed to not get a single print on the rifle's stock, bolt, barrel, scope, trigger, clip, shells and strap after he disassembled/reassembled the rifle and supposedly fired it 3 times. Why doesn't that give you LNers pause?

Because you LNers have been carrying the conspirators water for 56 years now. Congrats!

These are questions. I am trying to learn something. I am not making any claims.

item #3: Could it be that LHO did practice with the rifle, adjusted it the best he could, made a mental note that it was just a little off target one way or another, and then he could adjust his aim a little to compensate for this?

Item #4: As I remember, the disassembly needed (so that the rifle would fit inside the bag) involved removing the wooden stock from the metal barrel. Did the scope need to be removed from the barrel also? If not, then why would it need to be adjusted after reassembly?