Why Would LHO Choose His Workplace As The Location For Shooting JFK?

[Thomas Graves]

So they did see him in the window? Or you have photographic evidence showing an individual in that window?

Klienschmidt,

Are you sure photographic evidence would be sufficient?

I thought you, like Iacoletti, required notarized statements from fifteen witnesses, and DNA samples, too.

-- MWT 

PS  Oh, you mean the Sniper's Nest Window!

Hmm

Got a ticket I mean DNA samples?

If not, you ain't got popcorn I mean a case.

[Thomas Graves]

He didn't shoot Kennedy so the question is moot.

Freeman,

How do you know that?

"Crummy rifle, he sometimes got 'Maggie's Drawers' at 500 yards, and, gosh darn it, he said he was just a patsy, didn't he??"

LOL

Or is that just wishful thinking on your part, because, well ... you hate the evil, evil, evil CIA so doggone much!!!?

--  MWT 

[Ross Lidell]

Prof English, what did you do wrong here?

There was one? 

One what?

So they did see him in the window?

Or you have photographic evidence showing an individual in that window?

Answer: No you don't.
 
Question: Why don't you?

Answer: Because it never happened

Too bad your bag of evidence does not support your conclusion. You are not the first sucker.

Prof English, what did you do wrong here?

Enough with the cryptography?

There was one? 

One what?

So they did see him in the window?

Are you implying that Oswald must have been positively identified for him to have committed the assassination?

Or you have photographic evidence showing an individual in that window?

Not necessary for Oswald to be the assassin shooting from his workplace.

Answer: No you don't.

I don't need to.
 
Question: Why don't you?

See directly above.

Answer: Because it never happened

What never happened?

Too bad your bag of evidence does not support your conclusion. You are not the first sucker.

What evidence? Your last sentence is an assertion.

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

Prof English, what did you do wrong here?

Enough with the cryptography?

There was one? 

One what?

So they did see him in the window?

Are you implying that Oswald must have been positively identified for him to have committed the assassination?

Or you have photographic evidence showing an individual in that window?

Not necessary for Oswald to be the assassin shooting from his workplace.

Answer: No you don't.

I don't need to.
 
Question: Why don't you?

See directly above.

Answer: Because it never happened

What never happened?

Too bad your bag of evidence does not support your conclusion. You are not the first sucker.

What evidence? Your last sentence is an assertion.

You said:  "There no rule-book..." which of course, you still missed your error.

I said: There was one? 


So you see LHO shooting from that window? You either or you don't

[Ross Lidell]

You said:  "There no rule-book..." which of course, you still missed your error.

I said: There was one? 


So you see LHO shooting from that window? You either or you don't

There: no rule-book... [I missed a colon]

There's no rule-book... [I missed an apostrophe and an "s"]

There is no rule-book... [I missed the word "is"]

For Oswald not to be positively identified at the window from where shots were  fired does not exonerate him of assassinating President John F. Kennedy.

[Jerry Freeman]

Freeman, How do you know that? "Crummy rifle, he sometimes got 'Maggie's Drawers' at 500 yards, and, gosh darn it, he said he was just a patsy, didn't he??"
Or is that just wishful thinking on your part, because, well ... you hate the evil, evil, evil CIA so doggone much!!!?

I revived this thread [reply #427] because I just knew that Tommy the Troll was going to ask that.
I can tell that he [and some other posters here] must not have even read that post.

[Thomas Graves]

I revived this thread [reply #427] because I just knew that Tommy the Troll was going to ask that.
I can tell that he [and some other posters here] must not have even read that post.

Freeman,

What post?

LOL

--  MWT   

[Steve M. Galbraith]

There: no rule-book... [I missed a colon]

There's no rule-book... [I missed an apostrophe and an "s"]

There is no rule-book... [I missed the word "is"]

For Oswald not to be positively identified at the window from where shots were  fired does not exonerate him of assassinating President John F. Kennedy.

I find it curious that the general or major conspiracy argument is that these major groups - or elements of them - like "the CIA" and "the FBI" and "the Pentagon" and "the DPD" conspired to kill JFK and frame Oswald and yet they didn't plant four or five witnesses in Dealey Plaza to say they saw Oswald in that window.  Remember that the conspiracy explanation in the Tippit shooting is that the witnesses were all coerced or planted or lied into saying it was Oswald who shot him. So why didn't Hoover or whomever plant witnesses to say they saw Oswald pull the trigger?

We can't prove - and certainly not to these conspiracy absolutists - that there wasn't a conspiracy and LHO didn't shoot JFK. So all we can do is ask these types of questions. For me, the failure of these alleged conspirators to do something simple such as plant witnesses who would identify Oswald as the shooter is evidence that there was no conspiracy. No, not proof. And no, not substantive evidence. But some evidence.

The conspiracists don't like these types of questions. Such as why didn't Marina say Oswald hated JFK? Or why didn't Paine said she saw the rifle. Et cetera. But sorry, they are legitimate ones even if they can't answer them.