Lee Harvey Oswald Ordered The Rifle

[Richard Smith]

I don't know if there is any evidence that could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald owned the rifle allegedly found on the 6th floor, but that doesn't entitle you to lie about the evidence that does exist.

I can think of a few things that would make your case stronger though:

- any USPS documentation of the alleged shipment from Klein's to PO box 2915
- original documents
- a signed and dated signature form from whoever picked up such a package
- an eyewitness description of the person who picked up such a package
- any evidence, eyewitness or otherwise, placing that specific rifle (not just one that resembled it) in Oswald's possession at any time

But this is all a red herring, because proving that he owned C2766 doesn't actually tell you anything about who killed the president.

None of which is required or would reasonably be expected to exist but if we did have any such evidence you would simply dismiss it as a potentially suspect just like you dismiss the existing evidence.  If Oswald had signed and dated some form indicating he had picked up the package, you would dismiss that just as you dismiss the rifle order form in his handwriting.  A postal clerk is supposed to remember who picked up a package eight months or so after the fact?  And you would accept that general ID as proof that it was Oswald? Right.  Keep dreaming. What you are basically arguing is that it is impossible to prove to you that Oswald ordered the rifle.   I haven't lied about any evidence.  It is a matter of public record.  Because you claim all evidence against Oswald is the product of fakery or lies doesn't mean it does not exist.  It means you have an impossible subjective standard of proof on the topic.

[John Iacoletti]

Do you think a large city PO checks the name on mail against a particular name list for that PO Box, and does this for tens-of-thousands of PO Boxes everyday?

Then what's the point of having that on the application?  To provide jobs to form printers?

[John Iacoletti]

None of which is required or would reasonably be expected to exist but if we did have any such evidence you would simply dismiss it as a potentially suspect just like you dismiss the existing evidence.

Strawman.  It's not my fault that your case is weak, circumstantial, and rhetorical.

I haven't lied about any evidence.

You certainly have.  Repeatedly.

:pointdown:

Oswald was in full flight murdering a police officer.  Flight doesn't mean he was running away in a panic as some CTers mistakenly suggest constitutes flight.  He was leaving the scene of a crime to avoid apprehension (i.e. flight).  No proof that he owned a rifle?  LOL.  There are pictures of Oswald holding it.  Documents that confirm that the same rifle found at his workplace was the one sent to him via a matching serial number.  His prints are on the rifle.

Because you claim all evidence against Oswald is the product of fakery or lies doesn't mean it does not exist

Another lie.  Quote me ever saying that "all evidence against Oswald is the product of fakery or lies".

[Richard Smith]

Strawman.  It's not my fault that your case is weak, circumstantial, and rhetorical.

You certainly have.  Repeatedly.

:pointdown:
Another lie.  Quote me ever saying that "all evidence against Oswald is the product of fakery or lies".

You are too dishonest or nutty to own up to claiming all evidence is faked or the product of lies.  Rather, you do this in each individual instance which proves the point over and over again.  And the evidence in this case has nothing to do with your nutty posts on an Internet forum.  I'm not sure why you are posting my point about Oswald being in flight after the assassination as proof of a lie unless you erroneously believe a criminal can only be in flight if he runs away in a panic.  The basic concept of flight is leaving the scene of a crime to avoid apprehension.  Which is exactly what Oswald did.

[Walt Cakebread]

I don't know if there is any evidence that could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald owned the rifle allegedly found on the 6th floor, but that doesn't entitle you to lie about the evidence that does exist.

I can think of a few things that would make your case stronger though:

- any USPS documentation of the alleged shipment from Klein's to PO box 2915
- original documents
- a signed and dated signature form from whoever picked up such a package
- an eyewitness description of the person who picked up such a package
- any evidence, eyewitness or otherwise, placing that specific rifle (not just one that resembled it) in Oswald's possession at any time

But this is all a red herring, because proving that he owned C2766 doesn't actually tell you anything about who killed the president.

any evidence, eyewitness or otherwise, placing that specific rifle (not just one that resembled it) in Oswald's possession at any time

I'm sure that you know that the BY photo CE 133A shows Lee Oswald holding a mannlicher carcano.... But that rifle is quite different than the mannlicher carcano that was found wiped clean of finger prints, and well hidden beneath boxes of books in the TSBD.  The rifle shown in CE 133A had no sling.....  Someone had "penciled in" a silly looking rendition of a sling ( looks like something Elmer Fudd had attached to his shotgun) on the BY photo.   

The rifle that was found in the TSBD had a HEAVY black leather, sling attached to it.....  There are photos that were taken as FBI agent Vince Drain carried the rifle on the night of 11/22/63 that show the sling to be made from HEAVY leather   The rifle that was presented to the Warren Commission had a flimsy light weight leather sling attached to it.   

[Martin Weidmann]

You are too dishonest or nutty to own up to claiming all evidence is faked or the product of lies.  Rather, you do this in each individual instance which proves the point over and over again.  And the evidence in this case has nothing to do with your nutty posts on an Internet forum.  I'm not sure why you are posting my point about Oswald being in flight after the assassination as proof of a lie unless you erroneously believe a criminal can only be in flight if he runs away in a panic.  The basic concept of flight is leaving the scene of a crime to avoid apprehension.  Which is exactly what Oswald did.

You are too dishonest or nutty to own up to claiming all evidence is faked or the product of lies.

Hang on, wasn't it you who wrote this;

Because you claim all evidence against Oswald is the product of fakery or lies doesn't mean it does not exist.

So first you lie about John claiming that and now you switch to him being too dishonest or nutty to make that claim?

Talk about dishonesty; you just exposed your own lie, fool.... now own it!


And the evidence in this case has nothing to do with your nutty posts on an Internet forum.

It's always funny when Richard throws a tantrum and talks gibberish....

[John Iacoletti]

You are too dishonest or nutty to own up to claiming all evidence is faked or the product of lies.

Then stop claiming that I do, if you don't like being called a liar.

  Rather, you do this in each individual instance which proves the point over and over again.

Really?  Then you should be able to quote these individual examples.  But you can't because you are Mr. Dishonest Strawman Argument.  What I point out in each case is that the evidence doesn't actually show what you claim it does.

  And the evidence in this case has nothing to do with your nutty posts on an Internet forum.  I'm not sure why you are posting my point about Oswald being in flight after the assassination as proof of a lie unless you erroneously believe a criminal can only be in flight if he runs away in a panic.

Uh, because you claimed without any evidence that he left to avoid apprehension.  Do you know this because of your mad mindreading skilz, or are you stating your speculations as fact?  Again.