[David Healy]

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:Is this supposed to be funny? Your extreme biases makes you completely incapable of weighing evidence.

Yep... another successful prediction.

Not a SINGLE citation...

Mark Ulrik Wrote:The above are not facts, but inferences (and not even reasonable ones). Even among your fellow conspiracy believers, there is hardly consensus for such extreme views. You have to conveniently ignore (or declare invalid) such evidence as order form (in LHO's handwriting), money order, other paperwork, ownership of PO Box, Marina's testimony, Walker bullet, backyard photos, and prints on rifle. Besides, even if the hand waving and defense lawyer tactics actually worked, and you got all that pesky evidence "thrown out of court," how would you go about proving that LHO didn't pick up the rifle? Put the post office under 24/7 surveillance?

You even put Oswald's name in quotes. Why? Is it also one of your "basic facts" that Oswald wasn't really Oswald?

Ah! Where do I begin?

I know... I'll make it simple. I stated, "How can [CE 139] be "Oswald's" rifle? He never paid for it, he never received it from the Post Office Box, he was never seen with a rifle...}

All you have to do is CITE the evidence that contradicts that statement.

And if you cannot - then you'll have to admit the accuracy of that statement. (Or, at the very least; that you're unable to document the falsity of that statement...)

(And since Oswald was on the HT/Lingual program - a fact that you've STILL refused to address, the proof that he didn't pick up a rifle is inherent in the fact that the CIA could not document it - despite the fact that they were picking up all of Oswald's mail before he was.)

I must say, I won't be holding my breath waiting for any citations...

Nice attempt at worming yourself out of the hole you dug yourself into. Sadly, it was you who called it a "basic fact" that Oswald didn't pick up the rifle at the post office, so the onus is on you to produce the surveillance footage (or whatever it is that you think you have) that proves your case.

Dude--are you an echo or are you here to prove the 1964 WCR is indeed the truth as we should know it?