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

[Steve M. Galbraith]

This has all been asked before. Everything has.
 "I saw him do it'' witnesses were rounded up were they not? [even if they didn't see anything]..but phony ones were not required or even desirable.
Were they there to watch the parade or gaze at the windows? There was already enough 'evidence'.
"Paine saw the rifle"? She didn't because there was no rifle in her garage. If she said there was anyway..it would have raised too many more questions.
Marina had already told the cops that Oswald bore no animosity toward JFK...so she couldn't very well tell the Commission any differently.

Sorry, you believe Paine and Marina et cetera, et cetera lied and were part of the conspiracy, correct? And they lied to frame Oswald, correct? And you believe the witnesses in the Tippit shooting all lied, correct?

But you don't believe they would lie about the rifle because there was no rifle? And "phony witnesses" were not required to identify Oswald in the sniper's nest?

Really? One of the biggest claims made by the "Oswald didn't do it" crowd is that nobody can place him in the window at the time of shooting. Planting phony witnesses in Dealey Plaza solves that.

Question: When did Marina tell the cops that Oswald bore no animosity towards JFK? I am not aware of that. And why didn't Ruth and Michael said he did? And you believe the DPD were part of the framing. So why didn't they just lie about what she said?

You folks believe all sorts of lies and falsehoods were done; evidence planted, witnesses coerced or planted. And yet these basic failures by the conspirators - to plant witnesses who said they saw Oswald shoot JFK or to coerce Jarman or Norman to say they saw him carry a large package - make no logical sense at all.

It only makes sense if there wasn't a conspiracy to frame Oswald.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Oswald didn't know the work routines of his co-workers? Where they went at lunch for example? Oswald knew that at lunch time he would have the floor to himself. Because the workers went downstairs to the "domino room" to eat lunch. And the evidence is they went down that day and he stayed on the sixth floor.

That is one piece of evidence to support Richard's claim.

This is the problem trying to reason with fanatical Oswald apologists. Reason and facts and logic don't work.

[John Iacoletti]

You folks believe all sorts of lies and falsehoods were done; evidence planted, witnesses coerced or planted. And yet these basic failures by the conspirators - to plant witnesses who said they saw Oswald shoot JFK or to coerce Jarman or Norman to say they saw him carry a large package - make no logical sense at all.

You folks believe that assumptions, conjecture, and psychobabble constitute evidence.

[John Iacoletti]

Oswald didn't know the work routines of his co-workers? Where they went at lunch for example? Oswald knew that at lunch time he would have the floor to himself. Because the workers went downstairs to the "domino room" to eat lunch. And the evidence is they went down that day and he stayed on the sixth floor.

You don’t know that he stayed on the sixth floor when they went to lunch, or even that he was on the sixth floor. That’s yet another assumption.

Shelley, Piper, and Givens (originally) placed Oswald on the first floor not long after the elevator race.

[Jerry Freeman]

Reminder...The weather forecast that Friday was rain. Kennedy's car would have to use the bubble top.
Some of the folks here think....
That Oswald didn't care about that. He had 4 bullets to kill everybody.
The Dallas Police loved Kennedy very much... they would wish him no harm and protected him so well.
DA Henry Wade   ""        """        ""         ""      "           "          "         "           "          "
Jane Edna Hoover    ""               "         "                  "                  "                 "               "
Hoover did not even attend the JFK funeral. When Kennedy was being buried she/he was in his office smoking a cigar--
---conducting business as usual
 

FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover learned early on about the plan but did nothing to stop it. Hoover warned no one—not the Dallas police, not the Secret Service. His motives stemmed from a fervent hatred of Kennedy and fear that the President would eventually fire him. He is documented as a close confidant of Vice President Lyndon Johnson—a man Hoover "controlled" due to blackmail and scandals. Hoover’s day–to–day running of the FBI, his strange personality, and his backroom dealings are brought to life using an extensive collection of press clippings, government documents, and other original sources.

Act of Treason...Mark North 

[Richard Smith]

Oswald didn't know the work routines of his co-workers? Where they went at lunch for example? Oswald knew that at lunch time he would have the floor to himself. Because the workers went downstairs to the "domino room" to eat lunch. And the evidence is they went down that day and he stayed on the sixth floor.

That is one piece of evidence to support Richard's claim.

This is the problem trying to reason with fanatical Oswald apologists. Reason and facts and logic don't work.

Yes, using common sense and reason on these nuts is like trying to teach a chimp to speak French.  A waste of time.  If they were capable of that feat, they wouldn't be CTers to begin with.   It's all the more amusing that these same nuts entertain all manner of wildly outlandish, baseless theories about average citizens Oswald encountered for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever but then dispute any logical inference relating to Oswald's actions.  That would include his scouting a place in the building that gave him the best combination of a shooting location and seclusion to commit the act.  Oswald would also have been aware of the general patterns and behaviors of his fellow employees including whether the 6th floor was generally deserted at lunch time.  He had worked in the building for a month or so.  When he selects the 6th floor as his shooting location, he decides where it is best to hide the rifle on that floor.  And that would be where he goes with the rifle when he arrives that morning.  Not rocket science.  He is seen carrying his clipboard and the clipboard is found on the 6th floor.   A logical inference is that he is trying to give the appearance of being busy with his clipboard to explain his presence on the floor just prior to the assassination.  Once he decides it's a go, the last thing he does is place the clipboard down and retrieve his rifle.  Thus, the location of the clipboard may provide an indication as to where he hid the rifle before the assassination.  And its in the same general area where he hides it after the assassination.  Suggesting that Oswald believes it to be a good hiding spot.

Only Oswald can know certain details of the crime.  He was in the process of committing a crime and took measures to hide his activities in anticipation of that crime.  We can, however, apply logic and common sense to the evidence to make certain logical inferences about his actions.  But no one needs to prove with absolute certainty where Oswald hid the rifle or whether he had some trepidation about carrying it into the building to demonstrate his guilt.  The presence of Oswald's rifle on the floor from which witnesses confirm there was a shooter along with fired bullet casings from his rifle make him the obvious suspect.  His prints on the SN boxes and bag further implicate him.  Absent any type of reasonable explanation as to how his rifle ended up there, his goose is cooked.  Instead Oswald flees the building, gets a pistol, shoots a police officer, and lies to the police about not owning a rifle.   His story about the bag also contradicts what Frazier tells the police (i.e. that he asked Oswald about his lunch and Oswald confirmed that he was not carrying his lunch on that day).  All highly indicative of guilt.  It is laughable that anyone can believe from these facts and circumstances that there is any doubt whatsoever of his guilt.  A contrarian can dispute facts, evidence, common sense and logic to the end of time if they don't desire reaching any conclusion.  It's just a lazy and dishonest way to create the false impression of doubt.  Nothing in human history could ever be accepted as fact applying that type of alice-in-wonderland kookery to any situation.   It's what a defense attorney does when they realize their client is guilty.  An implicit acknowledgement of guilt.

[John Iacoletti]

Yes, using common sense and reason on these nuts is like trying to teach a chimp to speak French.

“Common sense and reason” is what “Richard” calls it when he makes up a narrative out of thin air.

logical inference relating to Oswald's actions.  That would include his scouting a place in the building that gave him the best combination of a shooting location and seclusion to commit the act. 

Case in point. There’s no evidence whatsoever that Oswald “scouted” the building.

Oswald would also have been aware of the general patterns and behaviors of his fellow employees

Baseless speculation. There’s no reason to assume that they had any “general patterns and behaviors” to be aware of, or that Oswald was in fact aware of any.

including whether the 6th floor was generally deserted at lunch time. 

They didn’t “generally” lay flooring. In fact, it was less likely to be deserted this particular day than usual.

He had worked in the building for a month or so.  When he selects the 6th floor as his shooting location,

Notice how “Richard” just slips in his conclusion as an assumption?

he decides where it is best to hide the rifle on that floor. 

There’s no evidence that a rifle was hidden on that floor prior to the motorcade arriving.

And that would be where he goes with the rifle when he arrives that morning. 

There’s no evidence Oswald went to the sixth floor when he arrived that morning. Or that he had a rifle.

Not rocket science.

Correct. It’s just self-serving made up BS.

  He is seen carrying his clipboard and the clipboard is found on the 6th floor.

There’s also no way to know that the clipboard found by Frankie Kaiser 11 days later was used by Oswald on November 22. Kaiser wasn’t even at work that day.

Only Oswald can know certain details of the crime.

Again, assuming the conclusion. And why are you so dead set on making up details that cannot be known?

But no one needs to prove with absolute certainty where Oswald hid the rifle or whether he had some trepidation about carrying it into the building to demonstrate his guilt.

You haven’t even proven that he brought a rifle into the building.

The presence of Oswald's rifle

LOL

on the floor from which witnesses confirm there was a shooter

No witnesses saw any shooting.

along with fired bullet casings from his rifle make him the obvious suspect.

Suspect to your heart’s content. Just don’t pretend you’ve proven anything.

  His prints on the SN boxes and bag further implicate him. 

Implicate him for what? Touching book boxes that it was his job to get books out of? Or touching a bag that you can’t demonstrate ever contained a rifle?

Absent any type of reasonable explanation as to how his rifle ended up there, his goose is cooked. 

Guilty until proven innocent. “Reasonable” to you means the thing you already believe.

Instead Oswald flees the building, gets a pistol, shoots a police officer, and lies to the police about not owning a rifle.

Again, these are all claims based on biased assumptions (Oops, I mean “common sense”), not evidence.

   His story about the bag also contradicts what Frazier tells the police (i.e. that he asked Oswald about his lunch and Oswald confirmed that he was not carrying his lunch on that day).  All highly indicative of guilt. 

All that’s highly indicative of is that his (alleged) story contradicts Frazier. Frazier’s story over the years also contradicts Frazier’s story.

It is laughable that anyone can believe from these facts and circumstances that there is any doubt whatsoever of his guilt.

It’s laughable that you think your subjective opinions are evidence.

  A contrarian can dispute facts, evidence, common sense and logic to the end of time if they don't desire reaching any conclusion. 

You act like reaching a conclusion is in-and-of-itself a virtue. Even if you have to make things up to reach it.

It's just a lazy and dishonest way to create the false impression of doubt.

Just because you have no doubt doesn’t mean there is no reasonable doubt. It’s not all about you.

  Nothing in human history could ever be accepted as fact applying that type of alice-in-wonderland kookery to any situation.   It's what a defense attorney does when they realize their client is guilty.  An implicit acknowledgement of guilt.

What you are doing is what a corrupt prosecutor does when there is a foregone conclusion. Everything points to guilt.

“I am not a witch”

“Only a true witch will deny being a witch!”

“All right then, I’m a witch”

“She’s a witch — she admitted it!”