single bullet theory is not true says Soily

[Ranb]

I wait with baited breath.

Why isn't circumstantial evidence enough?

Ranb

 

[TraneWreck]

I would have thought the warren report is true and the Warren report is false were pretty major disagreements myself. I also would have thought Oswald acted alone and it was a mafia conspiracy were fairly major points of diversion too.

Haha, therein lies your problem. Calling the report "true" or "false" is an exercise in vapidity.

And there's an inherent flaw in your criticism, if the conspiracy theorists aren't homogenous then you can't critize them in a broad stroked generalities.

Some people think the Earth is flat, some think it's 6000 years old, some think the moon landings were faked, some think the US government plotted 9-11, some think Castro killed Kennedy. That's a wide variance of belief that can all be carried on the broad shoulders of the word "idiotic."

Also i've not had the answer to my questions yet.

Please post the physical evidence that Oswald fired a rifle that day.

Please post the physical evidence that ce399 was fired at Kennedy or was ever in their bodies.

Please post the physical evidence that any of the fragments in connoly were fired from oswalds rifle or came from ce399.

I wait with baited breath.

You were given those answers, you just continue to deny them without good reason.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I would have thought the warren report is true and the Warren report is false were pretty major disagreements myself.

I'd have thought that portraying the Warren Commission report as either entirely true or entirely false, and the opinions of sane people as aligning with one or other of those extremes, was a pretty major strawman fallacy myself.

Dave

 

[RoboTimbo]

Also i've not had the answer to my questions yet.

You've fallen a bit behind on answering questions yourself, Soily. And these are just the ones I've asked without getting an answer. You'll need to check with everyone else, too.

Interesting, you freely accept witness testimony as gospel only when it satisfies your quest for a conspiracy theory. Every other time, they are lying or mistaken, especially when their testimony agrees with physical evidence. How do you reconcile that?

So you're saying that nobody could have built the sniper's nest? And yet there obviously was one? How do you reconcile that, Soily?

And yet the rifle and revolver were both shipped to that PO Box and not returned. How do you reconcile that, Soily? They were shipped to an alias that Oswald was positively shown to have used elsewhere. They are positively shown to have been in Oswald's possession. The revolver he had in his possession when he was cornered in the theater after he murdered Tippit. The rifle had his prints on it, even in a place that was only accessible when the rifle was broken down. How do you reconcile these things, Soily?

And I wait with bated breath.

 

[carlitos]

This was some of Jack White's best work, in my opinion:

 

[Soily]

Why isn't circumstantial evidence enough?

Ranb

Do you have physical evidence for those things yes or no?

 

[TraneWreck]

Do you have physical evidence for those things yes or no?

"Circumstantial" evidence and "physical" evidence are not mutually exclusive terms.

The palm print, for example, is both circumstantial and physical.

 

[Ranb]

Do you have physical evidence for those things yes or no?

I have nothing to add that has not already been discussed in this thread. So, is circumstantial evidence enough?

Ranb

 

[Soily]

I'd have thought that portraying the Warren Commission report as either entirely true or entirely false, and the opinions of sane people as aligning with one or other of those extremes, was a pretty major strawman fallacy myself.

Dave

You not heard of Bugliosi then? He thinks the WC is unimpeachable. And there's no getting round the fact that Hale Boggs, John Cooper and Richard Russell didn't agree with the Warren commissions central finding that the same bullet hit jfk and Connolly. So if that's a strawman it's a strawman with a big disagreement over the central issue, not over little details. And how divergent from the standard LN case could the chairman of the HSCA thinking the mafia did it be?

Debunkers manual number 137 - if you have no rational argument to make, just mention something vague about a strawman and hope 'll make your vapid non point point sound intellectual.

 

[Soily]

I have nothing to add that has not already been discussed in this thread. So, is circumstantial evidence enough?

Ranb

I'll take that as a no then, 3 central points in the case that you have absolutely no proof for.

I thought so.

 

[Soily]

"Circumstantial" evidence and "physical" evidence are not mutually exclusive terms.

The palm print, for example, is both circumstantial and physical.

A palm print on the rifle is not proof it was fired by the palms owner at the time of the assassination. Please post the physical evidence that Oswald fired that rifle or any rifle on the 22nd of November 1963.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I'll take that as a no then, 3 central points in the case that you have absolutely no proof for.

I thought so.

Another refusal to answer questions.

 

[TraneWreck]

A palm print on the rifle is not proof it was fired by the palms owner at the time of the assassination. Please post the physical evidence that Oswald fired that rifle or any rifle on the 22nd of November 1963.

I already did.

 

[JimBenArm]

Rule 122 of the debunkers manual - "Skeptics question an official story not because it is wanting in some regard, but because in our amateur pseudo-psychological opinion they like to feel they somehow have secret knowledge that makes them special."

Rule 123 - Mention Occam's Razor, but spectacularly fail to understand what it means.

Actually, we like watching you slice yourself to ribbons trying to wield it.

 

[riptowtan]

A palm print on the rifle is not proof it was fired by the palms owner at the time of the assassination. Please post the physical evidence that Oswald fired that rifle or any rifle on the 22nd of November 1963.

We've already gone over this and you claim its all faked, or all of the supporting witnesses are lying. I cannot disprove that, but since you are making the claim, you have to PROVE it. The burden of proof is on your shoulders. What I and others have already presented in my opinion stands up to your weak attempts to discredit them. The fact that you cannot accept any evidence incriminating Oswald as genuine, any eyewitness testimony supporting the OT,or any of the arguments and points raised here shows that you have an unfalsifiable belief system grounded in faith alone. You've presented no positive evidence or even an alternative scenario that's plausible. You have been using the scientific method in reverse the entire time, convinced from the get go that Oswald was framed without any evidence. What your doing is no science, nor is it convincing to any reasonable person. Obsessing over who said what and at what time something occurred is not how to properly investigate. You look at the totality of evidence, make sure your logic is correct, and then form a conclusion.

There is 53 pieces of evidence that show Oswald killed JFK. (Physical, eye witness, indirect) There are many reasons to think Oswald was the kind of guy to do this. (His political views, and history of abuse towards his own mother, loneliness, his assassination attempt on Walker, the bomb plot) There is not a shred of evidence for a grassy knoll shooter, additional bullets, or any unexplained wounds on either Connally or JFK. Oswald's behavior after the assassination fits the behavior or a man who was fleeing from some awful deed. And there is no evidence that anyone else was in contact with Oswald, nor is there any that Ruby was part of the mob.

The conclusion I have reached it that Oswald is clearly guilty.

Here are some huge problems with the JFK conspiracy theory as a whole, as said by Vincent Bugliosi:

" All of these theories and beliefs have turned out to be “moonshine.” I am convinced beyond all doubt that Oswald killed Kennedy. I am convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that there was no conspiracy.

Number one, there’s no credible evidence that the mob or CIA, KGB, military-industrial complex, [or others] were behind the assassination. All we have is naked speculation. I told the jury in London, I’ll stipulate that three people can keep a secret, but only if two are dead. Now here, it’s close to 44 years later, and not one word, not one syllable has leaked out that any of these groups were involved in the assassination.

Number two, there’s no evidence whatsoever that Oswald ever had any connection whatsoever with any of these groups, and we know that the FBI checked this guy out. Even [assassination researcher Harold] Weisberg conceded that the FBI checked out every breath [Oswald] ever breathed, from the moment he arrived back to the States from the Soviet Union on June 13, 1962 to the day of the assassination. They accounted for everything this guy did. They found no evidence after 25,000 interviews, that he had any connection with any of these groups.

Number three, assuming one of these groups wanted to kill the president, and I reject that out of hand, Oswald would have been one of the last people on the face of this earth whom they would have gone to kill Kennedy. Why? He was not an expert shot. He was a good shot, but not an expert shot. He owned only a twelve-dollar, mail-order rifle. He was notoriously unreliable, extremely unstable. Here’s a guy who defects to the Soviet Union pre-Gorbachev. I mean even today, who in the world defects to the Soviet Union? It’s one of the bleakest places on the face of the earth. And then he gets over there, tries to become a Soviet citizen, and is turned down. What does he do? He tries to commit suicide. He slashes his wrists and they had to take him to the hospital. Just the type of guy—I’m being sarcastic—that the CIA or mob would rely on to commit the biggest murder in American history.

Taking it to its final step, assuming that one of these groups wanted to kill Kennedy, and assuming further that for whatever crazy, bizarre reason they wanted to use Oswald to do it, and he agreed to do it, after he shot Kennedy in Dealey Plaza and the left the book depository, one of two things would have happened. The least likely thing is that there would have been a car there waiting for him to help him escape down to Mexico or wherever. Certainly the conspirators would not want their hit man to be apprehended and interrogated. The most likely thing by far: there would have a car waiting for him to drive him to his death. And yet we know that Oswald was out on the street with 13 dollars in his pocket, trying to flag down buses and cabs, and that alone tells any sensible person that there was no conspiracy here because that would not have happened if the CIA or mob were behind the assassination.

Even the motorcade route that took the president beneath Oswald’s sixth-floor window wasn’t determined until November 18, 1963, four days before the assassination. Now what rational person could believe that the CIA or mob or whatever the group it was would conspire with Oswald to kill Kennedy within just four days of the assassination?"

 

[TraneWreck]

Even the motorcade route that took the president beneath Oswald’s sixth-floor window wasn’t determined until November 18, 1963, four days before the assassination. Now what rational person could believe that the CIA or mob or whatever the group it was would conspire with Oswald to kill Kennedy within just four days of the assassination?"

Yep. All the physical evidence points to Oswald as the lone shooter. The random coincidences and impossible to control scenarios that led motorcade down that street with Kennedy exposed prove that there was no conspiracy behind Oswald.

This is an excellent, detailed run-down of the important events leading up to the assassination:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dallas.txt

Notice that Oswald had already begun working at the Book Depository before the route Kennedy would take had been decided.

Additionally, the fact that Oswald even had that job involved a series of random events that were obviously unplanned:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/leejob2.txt

I recommend reading both of those in their entirety. Oswald was a lone nut and outrageous fortune put he and Kennedy in their places at the crucial time. There was no plan.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You not heard of Bugliosi then? He thinks the WC is unimpeachable. And there's no getting round the fact that Hale Boggs, John Cooper and Richard Russell didn't agree with the Warren commissions central finding that the same bullet hit jfk and Connolly. So if that's a strawman it's a strawman with a big disagreement over the central issue, not over little details.

Rubbish. The central issue is who killed Kennedy, and the disagreement here is over the details of bullet trajectories.

And how divergent from the standard LN case could the chairman of the HSCA thinking the mafia did it be?

So a conspiracy theorist got himself into a position of influence. Good for him, it gave him a golden opportunity to prove his case. Remind me, how did that work out for him?

Sorry, but I wouldn't class Downing as a representative of the mainstream view.

Debunkers manual number 137 - if you have no rational argument to make, just mention something vague about a strawman and hope 'll make your vapid non point point sound intellectual.

Strange, I think that's roughly what you're doing here.

Dave

 

[Soily]

You've fallen a bit behind on answering questions yourself, Soily. And these are just the ones I've asked without getting an answer. You'll need to check with everyone else, too.



And I wait with bated breath.

There's actually not one shred of documentation that Oswald ever picked up either of those weapons and if he did, we don't know how because both those weapons were shipped to an address that didn't exist and both violated mandatory postal laws. And all this when there were ay least 3 reasons why oswald's activities through the post were been monitored. And this is where the more fundamental problem lies, because if oswald did order those weapons it almost as bad for you, if not worse. We know the CIAs illegal mail intercept programme opened Oswald's mail on January 24th 1963 and May 22nd 1963 (see Newman's Oswald and the CIA p286) Both the alleged weapons were ordered during this time span. Harry holmes the FBI informant in the Dallas post office was also monitoring peoples mail for anything potentially subversive. By early 63 oswald was ordereing so much subversive communist literature through his post office box that he got in to trouble with the post office and was forced to fill in customs form 2153-x, to which he added the comments 'I protest this intimidation'. James Hosty also found out about this surge of commie material that was coming through Oswald's mailbox via harry holmes, who bizarrely also sat in on Oswald interrogation. And to be clear all of this was happing through the 2915 post office box oswald supposedly ordered the weapons. So if Oswald the lone nut really did order these weapons, somebody knew about it alright. And what's more, Oswald knew full well somebody knew, because he knew and protested the fact his mailbox was been surveilled.

Does Bugliosi mention any of this in his tenditious book? Does he bollocks

Why would Oswald order weapons through a mailbox he knew was been watched?
Why would the CIA, FBI and the dallas post office let Oswald buy weapons through the mailbox they were watching and do nothing about it?

 

[Ranb]

Soily, you are very persistent when it comes to demanding answers from those who do not agree with you. How about answering a few questions yourself?

So for the third time, is circumstantial evidence enough?

Ranb

 

[TraneWreck]

There's actually not one shred of documentation that Oswald ever picked up either of those weapons and if he did...So if Oswald the lone nut really did order these weapons, somebody knew about it alright. And what's more, Oswald knew full well somebody knew, because he knew and protested the fact his mailbox was been surveilled.

The FBI followed Oswald after he re-entered the US when the USSR denied him citizenship. Thus, he was paranoid and used an alias. Why would he order a rifle that way? Because he was stupid, because he wasn't planning on assassinating anyone when he ordered it, because he thought they couldn't trace him through his alias, who knows? But he did. His handwriting was used on the order forms, he was in pictures with the gun, his palm print was on the gun.

It's pretty simple unless you adopt the position that the only acceptable facts are those that prove a conspiracy (which leaves you without any facts).

Why would Oswald order weapons through a mailbox he knew was been watched?

Maybe he thought the alias was enough, maybe he thought he could argue that he needed it for hunting. It doesn't matter why, because he did.

Why would the CIA, FBI and the dallas post office let Oswald buy weapons through the mailbox they were watching and do nothing about it?

Because they screwed up. Same reason the 9-11 hijackers managed to get on those planes despite all the evidence we had about their activities.

There was no reason to think Oswald was dangerous before he started trying to assassinate people. He was a small-fry, unimportant, the CIA and FBI didn't waste resources on him.