Still not going to try and disprove anything, eh ts? Somehow I’m not surprised.
Ya know, in my line of business, when one party presents some evidence supporting a proposition of fact, and the other side presents no evidence to the contrary, the result is that those who sit in judgment are required to accept the proposition as true. Now try to follow along as I go through my propositions and my evidence item by item.
Proposition: Oswald was a pretty good shot.
The evidence: (1) He qualified as a sharpshooter in the Marines. (2) He had practiced repeatedly with the rifle he used to shoot Kennedy. (3) He’d already used that same rifle in an assassination attempt on Gen. Walker a few months earlier (which shot, incidentally, missed killing Walker only because it was deflected ever so slightly by knicking a windowframe).
Proposition: The motorcade wasn’t that difficult a shot.
The evidence: (1) Kennedy was only a couple hundred feet away when Oswald fired the fatal shot with his rifle and 4x scope. (2) The motorcade was traveling slow in the first place (it had be to negotiate the 120-degree turn from Houston to Elm). (3) Kennedy’s driver actually slowed down further after the second shot (in fact, he damn near stopped).
Proposition: Oswald practiced repeatedly with the rifle he used to shoot Kennedy.
Evidence: (1) Marina Oswald testified to the Warren Commission that Lee would practice with the bolt action for hours on end. (2) She also testified that she personally saw Oswald take the rifle out for target practice several times, each time for several hours.
And in rebuttal of this evidence, you, tsunamisurfer, responded with nothing more than the following two factual propositions:[ul][li]Looking at his scores, Oswald was a good if unexceptional shot. (Which is, of course, almost exactly what I myself claimed–minty)[]To maintain proficiency requires frequent practice. (Which is, of course, exactly what my evidence shows Oswald was doing in the weeks and months prior to the assassination–minty.)[/li][/ul]And aside from providing evidence for my claims, what else did you come up with to prove my claims were wrong? Nothing but a series of questions that are largely unknowable and most certainly non-substantive as evidence of anything at all:[ul][li]Where do you get your “facts”?[]In drawing your conclusion, are you suggesting that Marines are more skilled than their Army counterparts?[]Are you including former Marines/Army soldiers, many of whom were better shots than Oswald?[]Are you including civilians such as myself who like to hunt as well as practice at shooting ranges?[]Looking at his scores, Oswald was a good if unexceptional shot (which is, of course, almost exactly what I already claimed–minty).[]To maintain proficiency requires frequent practice (which is, of course, exactly what my evidence shows Oswald was doing in the weeks and months prior to the assassination–minty)[]IIRC, you quoted Oswald’s wife as saying he practiced “on multiple occasions.” How many is “multiple”? []Over what period of time?[]From what distance? []Was the target moving? []At what speed and vector? []Was he rushed to make his shots?Re: “…no question that he was capable of pulling it off.” That’s a rather wild conclusion. No question at all?[/ul][/li]
“But your honor, I don’t have to present evidence. minty loses just because I asked questions!”
Come talk to me when you have some real evidence to offer, tsunamisurfer.
