CE 143

[Martin Weidmann]

The contrarian brothers cast doubt on every piece of evidence that lends itself to Oswald's guilt and then deny that they are claiming the evidence is the product of fakery or that anyone is lying to implicate Oswald.  They make brilliant rebuttals like "Oswald's rifle - LOL."  This is Alice-in-Wonderland contrarian thinking.  They cast doubt on the evidence but then never are willing to accept the implications of their doubt having validity.  The sole objective is to suggest doubt of Oswald's guilt.  The implications of the doubt don't have to make any sense, be supported by any evidence, or even be mutually consistent with any other situations.   It is just so.  Like Inspector Clouseau, they suspect everyone and suspect no one.  A world of endless ambiguity in which no fact that they don't wish to accept can ever be proven.   It is all just "opinions" and "assumptions."

They cast doubt on the evidence

How can anybody cast doubt on evidence that you are unable to present?

It is all just "opinions" and "assumptions."

Given your total failure to present even a shred of evidence for any of your idiotic claims, it's a fair observation to conclude that all you have are opinions and assumptions.

A world of endless ambiguity in which no fact that they don't wish to accept can ever be proven. 

When did you ever back up any claim with evidence?

A reasonable person backs up his conclusions or claims with evidence.
A fanatical zealot never presents evidence and just proclaims his opinion as the only truth.

Now, which one of those two are you?

[Charles Collins]

Several people testified that they saw LHO hit McDonald with his left fist and attempt to pull a revolver from his belt with his right hand. No one will ever know for certain why LHO would choose to take this action. But we can offer some conjecture and opinions.

LHO must have seen that the police had him surrounded and were closing in on him. Hence his reported statement “Well, it’s all over now.” Under those circumstances, I think that most people would just surrender peacefully. Did LHO just want to die in a blaze of gunfire and take out as many policemen as he could before he was killed by their return fire. Or do you think that he intended to just commit suicide in front of the policemen? Are there any other possible reasons why you think that LHO would attempt to pull his revolver out?

[John Iacoletti]

So, specifically who do you think is lying and specifically how do you think that they are they lying?

You’re lying when you claim that Oswald “pulled out a gun”. That is specifically contradicted by McDonald and Walker.

[John Iacoletti]

They make brilliant rebuttals like "Oswald's rifle - LOL."

Brilliant unsubstantiated assertions like “Oswald’s rifle” deserve nothing more.

A world of endless ambiguity in which no fact that they don't wish to accept can ever be proven.   It is all just "opinions" and "assumptions."

And therein lies the problem. You think your assumptions are facts.

[Charles Collins]

You’re lying when you claim that Oswald “pulled out a gun”. That is specifically contradicted by McDonald and Walker.

 

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Detective Paul Bentley from "No More Silence": "Officer McDonald and the other officers were checking people on the lower floor. McDonald walked up in the row in front of this particular suspect, who was later identified as Oswald, as and he walked in front of him Oswald jumped up and pulled a pistol from his waist. At that instant I dove over about three or four rows of seats and came down on the side of Oswald...."

Hugh Aynesworth, in the theater during the search: from "November 22, 1963: Witness to History":
"Oswald stood up, raised his hands in an apparent gesture of surrender and then socked McDonald in the face with his left first. With his right hand he pulled a .38 Smith & Wesson from his belt...."

Maybe they're wrong; maybe McDonald and Walker are right. But to state that it's a lie that Oswald pulled out a revolver is false.

It's interesting when the Oswald defenders know things with certainty and when they don't. If it absolves Oswald it's a fact; if it doesn't it's tainted or corrupt.

[John Iacoletti]

Several people testified that they saw LHO hit McDonald with his left fist and attempt to pull a revolver from his belt with his right hand.

Name them. And how would they know what he was “attempting” if he didn’t actually do it?

No one will ever know for certain why LHO would choose to take this action. But we can offer some conjecture and opinions.

The problem is trying to pass this off as evidence that he murdered somebody. It’s not.

LHO must have seen that the police had him surrounded and were closing in on him. Hence his reported statement “Well, it’s all over now.”

Which strangely only McDonald heard.

Under those circumstances, I think that most people would just surrender peacefully.

Under normal circumstances, honest cops don’t search, assault, or arrest people for murder without probable cause.