CE 143

[Richard Smith]

We are not discussing the Lincoln shooting. This forum discusses the Kennedy and Tippit murders.

If you want to convince anybody that Oswald killed both men, all you need to do is present the evidence for your claims. Whining about another case, with different circumstances, and "contrarians" will get you nowhere.

But I can answer in kind;

Nobody saw Alfred Dreyfus commit any act of treason, yet a extremely circumstantial and one sided case was presented against him by fanatical "patriots", based, in part, on manipulated evidence and resulting in his wrongful conviction. If it wasn't for a passionate campaign by leading artists and intellectuals such as Émile Zola, Dreyfus would have spend the rest of his life in prison, despite the fact that evidence of his innocence had already been found.

Dreyfus had his day in court and ultimately was officially exonerated by a military commission. Oswald ever had his day in court!

LOL.  It's an analogy.  And you unintentionally bolstered it here.  Booth never had his day in court but no one doubts his guilt.   Your contrarian nonsense is only applied to evidence that links Oswald to the crime. 

[Martin Weidmann]

LOL.  It's an analogy.  And you unintentionally bolstered it here.  Booth never had his day in court but no one doubts his guilt.   Your contrarian nonsense is only applied to evidence that links Oswald to the crime.

It's an analogy.

And a very poor one. Where hardly anybody doubts Booth's guilt, the majority of people still doubt Oswald's guilt.

The reason: Booth was seen jumping out of Lincoln's theater box (where at least three people had seen him shoot Lincoln) with a revolver in his hand, just after the shots were fired. Oswald, on the other hand was not seen on the 6th floor prior, during and after the shots were fired, nor was he seen holding the murder weapon or coming down the stairs. If you don't understand the difference, you're even dumber than you have shown yourself to be.

Your contrarian nonsense is only applied to evidence that links Oswald to the crime.

And what evidence would that be?

Oh yeah, that's right, you can't say, at least not without making a complete fool of yourself.

[John Iacoletti]

I have not denied ever saying it. I responded by saying that McDonald said the same thing in his sworn testimony, therefore it isn't a falsehood. I cannot help it if you don't like what McDonald swore to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Get over it for crying out loud.

This is also flat out false.  McDonald did not say that Oswald "pulled out a revolver" in his sworn testimony.  But you said that on this forum.  You're wrong but you refuse to admit it.

"November 22, 1963: You Are The Jury" by David Belin, page 466: "Carrying a concealed gun is a crime."

You can research the statutes yourself if you want to try to claim Belin was wrong. I'm not that interested.

Of course you're not.  Just another unsubstantiated claim, and a false appeal to authority.

Mr. HILL. ...about the time Bentley reached in his pocket and got his billfold, the suspect made the statement, "I don't know why you are treating me like this. The only thing I have done is carry a pistol in a movie."

Note that your claim was "he admitted that he did and he knew it was a crime".  This quote does not support your claim.  At all.

There (dishonest) you go again, leaving out (aka: omitting) the details that you don't like. The report to Curry doesn't merely say that. It goes on (in the same freaking sentence) to say "and both of our hands were on a pistol that was stuck in his belt under his shirt." The very next sentence states: "We both fell into the seats struggling for the pistol."

What does this have to do with either "pulled out a revolver", or "was drawing it"?  Absolutely nothing.

McDonald said LHO was drawing the revolver. So did I. And, if you were honest, you should also.

You claimed that Oswald "pulled out a revolver".  If you were honest you'd admit that this is wrong instead of diverting.

[Charles Collins]

This is also flat out false.  McDonald did not say that Oswald "pulled out a revolver" in his sworn testimony.  But you said that on this forum.  You're wrong but you refuse to admit it.

Of course you're not.  Just another unsubstantiated claim, and a false appeal to authority.

Note that your claim was "he admitted that he did and he knew it was a crime".  This quote does not support your claim.  At all.

What does this have to do with either "pulled out a revolver", or "was drawing it"?  Absolutely nothing.

You claimed that Oswald "pulled out a revolver".  If you were honest you'd admit that this is wrong instead of diverting.

This is also flat out false.  McDonald did not say that Oswald "pulled out a revolver" in his sworn testimony.  But you said that on this forum.  You're wrong but you refuse to admit it.


Mr. McDONALD - He was drawing it as I put my hand.
Mr. BALL - From his waist?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.

Yes, hitting a police officer and pulling out a revolver certainly don’t seem to be the actions that one would expect from an innocent movie goer.

Of course you're not.  Just another unsubstantiated claim, and a false appeal to authority.


I gave you the source of my information as you asked. Here is another source that corroborates it:

John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and gun rights advocate, said in some ways, there were more regulations back in the 1960s than there are now.

“Back in the mid-60s, you were not allowed to carry a concealed handgun,” Lott said. “Today there are over one million Texans that have permits for concealed carry.”

https://thedailytexan.com/2016/08/01/texas-tightens-gun-laws-since-1966-shooting/


If you are going to dispute this, please provide your evidence. Otherwise, you are just being an ass.



Note that your claim was "he admitted that he did and he knew it was a crime".  This quote does not support your claim.  At all.


It most certainly does. 



What does this have to do with either "pulled out a revolver", or "was drawing it"?  Absolutely nothing.


None are so blind as those that will not see 



You claimed that Oswald "pulled out a revolver".  If you were honest you'd admit that this is wrong instead of diverting.

Yes, hitting a police officer and pulling out a revolver certainly don’t seem to be the actions that one would expect from an innocent movie goer.

[John Iacoletti]

Charles is determined to misrepresent the evidence. “Was drawing” is not the same as “pulled out”, and “thing I have done” is not the same as “know it is a crime”.

Utterly dishonest.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Oswald to the Soviet embassy officials/KGB agents about two months before the assassination. This is from "Passport to Assassination" by one of the agents Oleg Nechiporenko.

Oswald to agents: "I am afraid they'll kill me. Let me in!" He then pulls out a revolver: "See? This what I must carry to protect my life!"

Oswald then says that "He was afraid to return to the United States - where he would be killed. "But if they don't leave me alone I'm going to defend myself..."

"If they don't leave me alone I'm going to defend myself.." With that revolver, the one he pulled out and waved around.

[Charles Collins]

Charles is determined to misrepresent the evidence. “Was drawing” is not the same as “pulled out”, and “thing I have done” is not the same as “know it is a crime”.

Utterly dishonest.

There is no point in repeating again what was actually said. You can repeat your distortions as many times as you wish. They will only serve to demonstrate your dishonesty.