And I don't make arguments based on "need". I base them on the evidence. If Ellsworth and the officers who talked to him about Oswald's rifle were truthful, then it is a fact that there were two murder weapons.
Under what definition of *evidence* does Ellsworth's 30-year after the fact recollection of hearsay qualify as *evidence*, Robert?
Some issues cannot be resolved, in fact, many issues associated with this case cannot be resolved with certainty. Only blind advocates claim otherwise.
Whether there was a second rifle in the depository is not uncertain, however. Nobody mentions two. No one who searched the building except Ellsworth mentions a rifle on other than the sixth floor. And Ellsworth's claim came 30-years after the fact and you concede it's only hearsay, not *evidence*.
I have demonstrated with certainty, that Oswald did not fire any of the early shots. And I have demonstrated a probability that shots were fired at 285 and 313, that is so high that it is beyond reasonable dispute.
No, and no. You didn't need to demonstrate a high probability of a shot at Z313, since that is beyond dispute, as another poster pointed out.
Other issues, like the sniper locations, are also, not absolute certainties. The question of whether Ellsworth told the truth, also falls into that category. I see no probable reason to think that he didn't. You obviously do.
Nope, straw man argument. You can't rebut my arguments if you constantly mis-state them. I am no questioning his truth-telling. I am questioning his recall and the fact that he's only relaying hearsay.
At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, I am here to present relevant facts and evidence, associated with the assassination.
And we've been very patiently waiting for you to start.
Will it help if I tell you another 12 times, that I cannot prove it is true? Coming from a federal agent, it is obviously likely, however.
Then we're done. The Warren Commissioners, all seven of them, studied the evidence and concluded that Oswald fired all the shots that struck anyone. The House Committee on Assassinations, all twelve of them, studied the evidence and concluded that Oswald fired all the shots that struck anyone. Those men were all serving the federal government and as such, were agents of the federal government.
I can also cite several others, like J.E.Hoover, and Nicholas Katzenbach, who likewise concluded Oswald was the shooter and there was no conspiracy.
That's 21 guys whose conclusions, you must admit, are each "coming from a federal agent" and are "obviously likely" -- using your logic.
I'm pretty sure I never said that. Cite me verbatim please. I have lost track of how many times you have misrepresented my statements.
Straw man argument. I'm asking you to remember this argument of yours:
This is not a courtroom. And we don't apply the kind of standards that apply when a defendant's life or liberty is at stake.
When you try to shift the argument in the future:
Kindly remember you argued that when you want to argue that Oswald should be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Or that he's innocent because he was never convicted of the assassination. I've seen both arguments from conspiracy theorists.
I said no such thing. It gets tiresome having to continually correct your misrepresentations.
Another straw man. I never said you did. What part of the next sentence (that you failed to quote) did you not understand?
I am merely presuming you will avail yourself at some point of these arguments from other conspiracy theorists. Other than your shooting scenario, your points have all been standard boilerplate conspiracy theorist nonsense, so I believe this presumption isn't without justification.
Hank
