DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Are there any conspiracists here who have the slightest conception of what the words hard evidence mean? Anybody at all?
PASQUALE DiFABRIZIO SAID:
How about you tell us. Oswald-did-it-alone theorists use that term a LOT, but they can't come up with a definition. Even [Gary] Mack uses it. Tell us what "hard evidence" is. Give us a definition so we can use it to refute your claims.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Guns, bullets, bullet shells, fibers, fingerprints, palmprints, a paper bag lying in the Sniper's Nest with Lee Harvey Oswald's prints on it, and clothing (Oswald's jacket on the ground near the Texaco gas station in Oak Cliff).
Plus, we can also add in a couple more things that (IMO) go into the category of "hard evidence" (to a large degree) -- the ACTIONS and PROVABLE LIES of the person to whom EVERY LAST BIT of this "hard evidence" leads -- a Mr. Lee H. Oswald.
All of these things (including Oswald's own actions and known lies) corroborate and support each other, including the fact that each piece of physical evidence in the case corroborates and supports all the other evidence, which is evidence that leads only in one direction and to one single person -- Lee Oswald.
That was pretty easy, wasn't it?
And it should be easy for most conspiracy theorists to figure out, too. The difference being, of course -- most conspiracy theorists don't WANT to face the "hard evidence" in the JFK case. Because if they did, they'd have no choice but to stamp Mr. Oswald as a double-murderer.
~Mark VII~
David Von Pein
May 10, 2009
May 11, 2009
