CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?

[John Iacoletti]

That shouldn't require a game of a thousand questions or a mind reader.  Just tell us what you are suggesting. 

Why is it that you get to endlessly ask questions (even ones that have been answered) yet steadfastly refuse to answer any questions put to you?

For the zillionth time: what is your evidence that Lee Oswald was on the sixth floor with a rifle at 12:30 and traveled down to the 2nd floor in 75 seconds without being seen or heard by at least 12 people who were along the way?

Put up or shut up, “Richard”.

[Martin Weidmann]

Why is it that you get to endlessly ask questions (even ones that have been answered) yet steadfastly refuse to answer any questions put to you?

For the zillionth time: what is your evidence that Lee Oswald was on the sixth floor with a rifle at 12:30 and traveled down to the 2nd floor in 75 seconds without being seen or heard by at least 12 people who were along the way?

Put up or shut up, “Richard”.

Bump for Richard

[Richard Smith]

Bump for Richard

Again, that was done in the 1960s by law enforcement.  They conducted and compiled the evidence that links Oswald to the crime beyond any doubt.  That evidence is widely available.  I have nothing to add to that evidence not being a law enforcement person with the responsibility to investigate the crime.  The evidence compiled by the investigation is the evidence that I rely upon to conclude that Oswald was the assassin on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

[Martin Weidmann]

Again, that was done in the 1960s by law enforcement.  They conducted and compiled the evidence that links Oswald to the crime beyond any doubt.  That evidence is widely available.  I have nothing to add to that evidence not being a law enforcement person with the responsibility to investigate the crime.  The evidence compiled by the investigation is the evidence that I rely upon to conclude that Oswald was the assassin on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

Translation: I don't have an opinion of my own and just blindly believe whatever I am told, which in turn I of course can not explain or defend.

They conducted and compiled the evidence that links Oswald to the crime beyond any doubt.

2 comments;

1. No they didn't. The evidence was weak, dubious and highly circumstantial with only a tentative link to Oswald

2. Hang on....You have just expressed the opinion that the evidence compiled by law enforcement is linked to Oswald beyond any doubt. So, you do have an opinion after all. But you can not explain why that is your opinion and how you arrived at that conclusion? Is that right? Wow....

The evidence compiled by the investigation is the evidence that I rely upon to conclude that Oswald was the assassin on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

Again, relying on evidence to conclude that Oswald was on the 6th floor is an opinion. It's your opinion, so why can't you explain on exactly what evidence that opinion is based?

What actual evidence do you have that shows that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired?

[John Iacoletti]

No "law enforcement" official involved with investigating this crime (or any crime) would ever be so bold (read foolish) as to claim that anything can be proven "beyond any doubt".  That's pure "Richard".

What "Richard" charmingly refers to as "contrarian responses" is in fact plenty of reasonable doubt -- not just about his final conclusion, but with the authenticity of what little physical evidence actually exists.  Of course he desires it to be "good enough", but that's so he can maintain this "beyond any doubt" delusion.

[Richard Smith]

Translation: I don't have an opinion of my own and just blindly believe whatever I am told, which in turn I of course can not explain or defend.

They conducted and compiled the evidence that links Oswald to the crime beyond any doubt.

2 comments;

1. No they didn't. The evidence was weak, dubious and highly circumstantial with only a tentative link to Oswald

2. Hang on....You have just expressed the opinion that the evidence compiled by law enforcement is linked to Oswald beyond any doubt. So, you do have an opinion after all. But you can not explain why that is your opinion and how you arrived at that conclusion? Is that right? Wow....

The evidence compiled by the investigation is the evidence that I rely upon to conclude that Oswald was the assassin on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

Again, relying on evidence to conclude that Oswald was on the 6th floor is an opinion. It's your opinion, so why can't you explain on exactly what evidence that opinion is based?

What actual evidence do you have that shows that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired?

It's impossible to decipher this rambling nonsense.  I have concluded that Oswald was the assassin.  That conclusion is based on the evidence outlined by the law enforcement entities responsible for investigating the case.  Relying upon the evidence to reach a conclusion is  merely an "opinion"?  LOL.   No act in human history could ever be deemed a fact if relying upon the evidence to reach a conclusion was dismissed as an opinion because some contrarian disagreed with that conclusion.   Prove to me that Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg address if I can dismiss all the evidence as merely your "opinion" based upon what you have been "told."  It is laughable.  You should be ashamed.

[Martin Weidmann]

It's impossible to decipher this rambling nonsense.  I have concluded that Oswald was the assassin.  That conclusion is based on the evidence outlined by the law enforcement entities responsible for investigating the case.  Relying upon the evidence to reach a conclusion is  merely an "opinion"?  LOL.   No act in human history could ever be deemed a fact if relying upon the evidence to reach a conclusion was dismissed as an opinion because some contrarian disagreed with that conclusion.   Prove to me that Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg address if I can dismiss all the evidence as merely your "opinion" based upon what you have been "told."  It is laughable.  You should be ashamed.

It's impossible to decipher this rambling nonsense.

Hilarious. You can't decipher something, yet call it rambling nonsense nevertheless. Don't you understand how stupid that sounds?
We already know that you have major problems in understanding what you are told. That's nothing new.

I have concluded that Oswald was the assassin.  That conclusion is based on the evidence outlined by the law enforcement entities responsible for investigating the case.  Relying upon the evidence to reach a conclusion is  merely an "opinion"?  LOL.

Yes, your conclusion is "merely an opinion". I have looked at the same evidence and concluded that it is weak, speculative, non-conclusive and highly questionable. That's an opinion also.

I have explained many times why it is my opinion that the evidence against Oswald isn't persuasive, most likely manipulated, and certainly doesn't prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. You, on the other hand, have never explained why you feel the evidence against Oswald is conclusive.

No act in human history could ever be deemed a fact if relying upon the evidence to reach a conclusion was dismissed as an opinion because some contrarian disagreed with that conclusion.

Something isn't a fact just because you say it is. Only a fool would consider his own opinion to be a "fact". Different people can have different opinions about the evidence. It happens every day in just about every courtroom in the country. When there are different opinions about the evidentiary value of a piece of evidence, further examination is needed to determine what is factual and what isn't.

The WC report is nothing more than a prosecutor's brief. To predetermine it as factual is just plain cult-like stupidity.

The biggest irony is that an actual fact can indeed be proven. You, on the other hand, can't even begin to explain your own conclusion and can not provide a shred of evidence in support of your own claims!

But let's stay on topic. The WC and law enforcement have not presented a shred of evidence for their assumption that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. Their "conclusion" most certainly isn't a fact. Assuming that he was there because "his rifle" was found there is utter BS. There is no evidence for you to rely on to reach your conclusion and call it a "fact". Yet, here you are claiming that Oswald was in fact on the 6th floor. It's pathetic.

[Richard Smith]

It's impossible to decipher this rambling nonsense.

Hilarious. You can't decipher something, yet call it rambling nonsense nevertheless. Don't you understand how stupid that sounds?
We already know that you have major problems in understanding what you are told. That's nothing new.

I have concluded that Oswald was the assassin.  That conclusion is based on the evidence outlined by the law enforcement entities responsible for investigating the case.  Relying upon the evidence to reach a conclusion is  merely an "opinion"?  LOL.

Yes, your conclusion is "merely an opinion". I have looked at the same evidence and concluded that it is weak, speculative, non-conclusive and highly questionable. That's an opinion also.

I have explained many times why it is my opinion that the evidence against Oswald isn't persuasive, most likely manipulated, and certainly doesn't prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. You, on the other hand, have never explained why you feel the evidence against Oswald is conclusive.

No act in human history could ever be deemed a fact if relying upon the evidence to reach a conclusion was dismissed as an opinion because some contrarian disagreed with that conclusion.

Something isn't a fact just because you say it is. Only a fool would consider his own opinion to be a "fact". Different people can have different opinions about the evidence. It happens every day in just about every courtroom in the country. When there are different opinions about the evidentiary value of a piece of evidence, further examination is needed to determine what is factual and what isn't.

The WC report is nothing more than a prosecutor's brief. To predetermine it as factual is just plain cult-like stupidity.

The biggest irony is that an actual fact can indeed be proven. You, on the other hand, can't even begin to explain your own conclusion and can not provide a shred of evidence in support of your own claims!

But let's stay on topic. The WC and law enforcement have not presented a shred of evidence for their assumption that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. Their "conclusion" most certainly isn't a fact. Assuming that he was there because "his rifle" was found there is utter BS. There is no evidence for you to rely on to reach your conclusion and call it a "fact". Yet, here you are claiming that Oswald was in fact on the 6th floor. It's pathetic.

The WC compiled evidence from a variety of different sources.  Your subjective opinion that it is a "prosecutor's brief" does not rebut any of that evidence or render it an "opinion" rather than a fact.  You are constantly mistaking your subjective contrarian view as rebuttal to actual evidence.  Can you understand the difference?  That is a rhetorical question since you cannot.  It is actually laughable that you take yourself so seriously while providing these rambling long-winded explanations of your bizarre contrarian nonsense.  Again, is it merely my "opinion" that Abraham Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address because that is what I have been "told."  How would you prove this as a fact using your contrarian impossible standard of proof if someone else can dismiss all your evidence as an "assumption"?