DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
If only a small percentage of the evidence against Oswald has not been faked or tampered with, then Oswald's very likely guilty.
ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
That does not follow logically. All they have to do is steal Oswald's rifle and then fire those shots from the sniper's nest.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
So, you think it's MORE reasonable and MORE logical and MORE likely for someone to have stolen Oswald's rifle and shot President Kennedy with it, rather than just believing that Oswald himself did the shooting with his own gun?
That's not logically following the evidence. That's inventing a theory from whole cloth which has no hard evidence to support it. (For example: How did your make-believe thief get the rifle out of Ruth Paine's garage without being heard or seen?)
Why would you want to believe an unsupportable extraordinary theory about rifle-pilfering, vs. just simply believing what the evidence suggests about Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt?
And any rifle-stealing theory is all the more ridiculous in this case when we factor in Oswald's own lies that he told the police (and Buell Frazier).
E.G.:
Why did Oswald lie to Frazier about the contents of that brown bag?
Why did Oswald lie to the police when he told them he never carried any large bag into the Depository?
Why did Oswald lie to the police when he told them he never said a word to Buell Frazier about any curtain rods?
Why did Oswald lie and say he didn't own a rifle?
Still think Oswald's rifle was stolen, Tony?
David Von Pein
April 10, 2012
