Firearms experts who say; ?I can't do it so it can't be done?, cannot be trusted

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

"Oswald's capability does not need to be taken into account when discussing other shooter's "intentions" in performing a replication scenario"

Another meaningless statement. Since you believe the WC theory, the least you could do is present evidence. It is obvious you don't even know the WC version or how they come to their conclusion, but you do believe their conclusion. All you do is answer questions with questions. 

Here is another statement that has no relevance

"Metal-jacketed bullets can go through two (2) human bodies. That is a 100% certain fact.
-- If you disagree: Calculate the odds that bullets cannot go through "2 guys"."

Another statement that shows you are not very serious. You need to finish your ideas. Since you bring up"odds" you need to calculate in the odds a bullet shows up on a hospital transport bed. "100% certain fact", right? If you believe anything

[Ross Lidell]

"Oswald's capability does not need to be taken into account when discussing other shooter's "intentions" in performing a replication scenario"

Another meaningless statement. Since you believe the WC theory, the least you could do is present evidence. It is obvious you don't even know the WC version or how they come to their conclusion, but you do believe their conclusion. All you do is answer questions with questions. 

Here is another statement that has no relevance

"Metal-jacketed bullets can go through two (2) human bodies. That is a 100% certain fact.
-- If you disagree: Calculate the odds that bullets cannot go through "2 guys"."

Another statement that shows you are not very serious. You need to finish your ideas. Since you bring up"odds" you need to calculate in the odds a bullet shows up on a hospital transport bed. "100% certain fact", right? If you believe anything

Weak reply. You "dodged" most of the replies I made to your "assertions".

FACT: Oswald's rifle-shooting ability is not "front and center" when debating the possibility of "expert shooters not trying their best" in reconstructions.

I didn't bring up "the odds"... Jerry Freeman did.
The chances all must number into the thousands ..lucky indeed.

It is obvious you don't even know the WC version or how they come to their conclusion...

I have a copy of the report of the Warren Commission (New York Times Edition - hard cover version). I've read it thoroughly.

Is there some rule that says I cannot ask a question when your reply is vague or just an assertion?

[Jerry Freeman]

I have a copy of the report of the Warren Commission (New York Times Edition - hard cover version). I've read it thoroughly.

   Seriously? Is that is all you have ever read? Not even Re-clamoring History? Throw that Readers Digest condensed version away and read the 26 volumes of Hearings and Exhibits that this report is is supposedly supported by. Come back when you have learned something substantial.
 

[Ross Lidell]

   Seriously? Is that is all you have ever read? Not even Re-clamoring History? Throw that Readers Digest condensed version away and read the 26 volumes of Hearings and Exhibits that this report is is supposedly supported by. Come back when you have learned something substantial.

Very funny. Slightly funny.

More inaccuracy by JFk (guess what "k" stands for?): The New York Times "reprint" of the Warren Commission Report is the full version with 17 Appendixes .

The NYT does not now and never did own Reader's Digest.

[Jerry Freeman]

The NYT does not now and never did own Reader's Digest.

A metaphor. Understand this though...the Oswald did it alone story is based on a THEORY that Oswald did it alone.
That report that you read states that no conspiracy could be found. No one ever looked for one.
 

[Ross Lidell]

A metaphor. Understand this though...the Oswald did it alone story is based on a THEORY that Oswald did it alone.
That report that you read states that no conspiracy could be found. No one ever looked for one.

A metaphor.

Still wrong because the New York Times authorized version of The Warren Commission Report is not abbreviated. Words per page is greater but that's the only discernible difference.

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

Weak reply. You "dodged" most of the replies I made to your "assertions".

FACT: Oswald's rifle-shooting ability is not "front and center" when debating the possibility of "expert shooters not trying their best" in reconstructions.

I didn't bring up "the odds"... Jerry Freeman did.
The chances all must number into the thousands ..lucky indeed.

It is obvious you don't even know the WC version or how they come to their conclusion...

I have a copy of the report of the Warren Commission (New York Times Edition - hardcover version). I've read it thoroughly.

Is there some rule that says I cannot ask a question when your reply is vague or just an assertion?

Just because I named you Prof. Ross does not mean you are a Professor. 

Question: What does this statement remind you of?
"I have a copy of the report of the Warren Commission (New York Times Edition - hardcover version). I've read it thoroughly."

Answer #1 Hopefully you, because you typed it
Answer #2 Some guy who went to NYU for a degree in journalism.

Before you react, tell me if I am right. Lie if you want to.
"I have a copy of the report of the Warren Commission (New York Times Edition - hardcover version). I've read it thoroughly."

Who in the hell cares? I certainly don't, but I do understand why you believe the silly things you believe. You are as ill as the researcher who thinks one theory, the first one he came across, in your case, it's that one theory in the almighty book, the New York Times Edition-hard cover version. Did I get that right Preacher Ross? The New York Times Edition??? Is that the edition you memorized? Does it have their world-class photography to add to the special "hardcover version"? Which version is it? Does it explain how Arlen Spector reshapes theories, literally creates new laws of physics and etc. is it similar to reading the failing NYTimes newspaper

Ross, you need to open your mind just a little bit