Did Captain Fritz show Mr Oswald a Mauser?

[John Iacoletti]

So your explanation for why the fantasy conspirators used a different rifle to assassinate JFK than the rifle that was planted to frame Oswald is that they had to plant one to match the rifle in the BY photos!  HA HA HA.  This gets better and better.  They had to have access to Oswald's MC rifle (i.e. the one in the BY photo) to have planted it at the TSBD and place fired bullet casings from that rifle at the scene.

Like you actually know the rifle in the photos is the same one supposedly found in the building.

HA HA HA

[John Iacoletti]

Oswald is linked to the rifle by the evidence (i.e. documents, prints, photos, witness testimony, serial number, PO box, use of an alias associated with him).

Nope.  The only thing that links Lee Oswald personally with a rifle from Klein's (a similar rifle, not an identical rifle) is unscientific and biased handwriting "analysis" of two block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon.  From microfilm that is now "missing".  Everything else is your assumptions.

  The rifle is linked to the assassination by overwhelming evidence (i.e. found at the crime scene, fired bullet casings, bullets and bullet fragments from that rifle).

Nope.  There is nothing that links that rifle to any bullet that can be demonstrated to have gone through Kennedy or Connally or that puts that particular rifle in Oswald's hands at 12:30 on 11/22/63.  Other than your imagination.

  Your rebuttal is simply that all this evidence could be faked or planted.  That is not a basis to raise any doubt.  It is an exercise in applying an impossible standard of proof to the facts and evidence to raise fake doubt.

Nope.  The evidence doesn't have to be "fake or planted".  It still doesn't demonstrate who pulled the trigger.  Not without a giant exercise in assumption and handwaving.

[Walt Cakebread]

Like you actually know the rifle in the photos is the same one supposedly found in the building.

HA HA HA

There is some very visible differences between the BY photo carcano. and the TSBD carcano....Primarily the Sling.

And yes you can make up excuses to explain the differences....but that does NOT prove that the BY carcano is the same as the TSBD carcano 

[John Iacoletti]

There is some very visible differences between the BY photo carcano. and the TSBD carcano....Primarily the Sling.

And yes you can make up excuses to explain the differences....but that does NOT prove that the BY carcano is the same as the TSBD carcano

Facts don't matter to "Richard".  If he wants them to be the same, then *poof*, they are the same.

[Martin Weidmann]

Oswald is linked to the rifle by the evidence (i.e. documents, prints, photos, witness testimony, serial number, PO box, use of an alias associated with him).  The rifle is linked to the assassination by overwhelming evidence (i.e. found at the crime scene, fired bullet casings, bullets and bullet fragments from that rifle).  Your rebuttal is simply that all this evidence could be faked or planted.  That is not a basis to raise any doubt.  It is an exercise in applying an impossible standard of proof to the facts and evidence to raise fake doubt.

As I said earlier;
 

Indeed, neither "Richard" or that clown, Chapman, for that matter are able to have a normal discussion about the evidence. All they do is repeat the same old weak and implausible narrative and ignore and dismiss anything that does not fit in that narrative. It reminds me of Albert Einstein's famous line: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Your rebuttal is simply that all this evidence could be faked or planted. That is not a basis to raise any doubt.

No. My rebuttal is that the so-called "overwhelming" evidence is not only in no way overwhelming but also highly questionable to the extent that it justifies reasonable doubt. 

It is an exercise in applying an impossible standard of proof to the facts and evidence to raise fake doubt.

Pointing out inconsistencies in the evidence and asking questions you can't (or don't want to) answer is not applying an impossible standard of proof. It is exposing the weakness of the narrative. It's not my problem that you don't like that.

[Bill Chapman]

Sure, Mortimer, but a discussion is more that just telling us who you believe did it over and over again.  Oh yeah, and all of your "clever, cut-to-the-quick insights".

------------
GLOSSARY
------------

Neil > rhymes with 'kneel'
as in kneeling at Oswald's grave

Mortimer > tell us what that has to do with anything, Mr McNeely

Oh yeah, and here's one of my clever, cut-to-the-quick insights: I've never trusted one word you've ever said. Here, let me cut that insight further, Neil: I don't trust you.

[Bill Chapman]

Facts don't matter to "Richard".  If he wants them to be the same, then *poof*, they are the same.

"Richard"

Kudos to Richard if he is indeed using a generic name. You know, the ID theft thing.

As opposed to certain people who expose all their details on spaces like 'mylife'

Not to mention your atheist space on YouTube. Not to mention the tshirt emblazoned with 'IACOLETTI' you are wearing on said atheist space.

Talk about attention-seeking, eh cowboy
--------------------------------------------------------------------
« Iacoletti Reply #220 on: March 03, 2021, 10:42:35 PM »
Poor little attention-seeking clown-boy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------