Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Martin Weidmann]

Didja' ever notice that every and any evidence/claim that is made that is critical of Oswald has to be refuted by his defenders? Every single one. It doesn't matter how minor or innocuous. It doesn't have to be related to the assassination. Anything. They just don't like criticism of him.

Trump once said, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?"

Oswald could say, "I could shoot someone on Elm Street in Dallas and I wouldn't lose any of my supporters, OK?"

Both are right.

Didja' ever notice that every and any evidence/claim that is made that is critical of Oswald has to be refuted by his defenders? Every single one. It doesn't matter how minor or innocuous.

Stop playing the victim. I doesn't work. When you and your fellow nutters make a claim, no matter how minor or innocuous, it needs to be supported by evidence, yet it mostly isn't. This is no longer the 1600's where anybody, without evidence, could call a woman a witch to seal her fate!

If you had a compelling and persuasive case against Oswald, you wouldn't be complaining and this forum would likely not exist. You are only complaining because your arguments fail to persuade anybody with a functional brain. It has nothing to do with people not liking criticism of Oswald. Instead it has everything to do with the extremely weak circumstantial case you and your ilk are constantly presenting. You lot are like bad, incompetent, prosecutors who are complaining to the judge that the jury is unfair because they don't believe their crappy story.

Stop complaining, clean up your act and for once present something conclusive against Oswald, and by that I don't mean speculation and assumptions!

[Walt Cakebread]

He was planning on assassinating the President and you think he would be deterred by the "risk" of making a paper bag?  Wow.   

He was, was he? How in the world would you even know something like that and what do you say to the LNs that claim that Oswald only decided to try to kill Kennedy after Marina turned him down?

What "risk" would that entail?  If anyone asked what he was doing (and who would care?) all he had to do is come up with some lie like he did with Frazier.

The risk would be that he would be noticed prior to the crime doing something unsual which people like Troy West would remember. Btw what lie did he tell Frazier and how would you even know that?

And why are you so hung on this bag?  Even if you believe there is some doubt that Oswald carried the rifle in his bag that morning (and there is no real doubt on this point) his rifle was found on the 6th floor.   

There is not only massive doubt about Oswald carrying the rifle in a paper bag on 11/22/63, it also is by no way clear that it was "his rifle" that was found at the TSBD.

Only a very small number of adults had access to the location where he kept his rifle in the Paine's garage.  None of those people were at the TSBD.  The only person who had access to that rifle and the building where it was found was Oswald.  This is not Sherlock Holmes material.

It's indeed no Sherlock Holmes material. It's fairytale material from la la land.

Does the legal objection "assumes facts not in evidence" mean anything to you?

If you want to believe he smuggled the rifle into the building on some prior occasion or some other way, then knock yourself out.

It's not what I want to believe that matters. It's what you want to believe to make the fairytale work, at least to some extent. Unlike what your usual circular "logic" suggests, there is actually not a shred of evidence that Oswald ever smuggled a rifle of any kind into the TSBD.

It really doesn't matter HOW he got the rifle into the building but the FACT that his rifle was found in the building that
matters.

Backing away from the bogus paper bag speculation? But for once we agree to some extent. To make the agreement perfect all you need to do now is prove that (1) the MC rifle found at the TSBD was indeed owned by Oswald and (2) that the rifle was actually fired on 11/22/63. Can you do that?

(2) that the rifle was actually fired on 11/22/63.

If anybody could prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the carcano was fired on 11/22/63.   Then the Lner's would have something they could use..... ( It still wouldn't prove that Lee Oswald fired it)   HOWEVER....There is many reasons that indicate the rifle was NOT fired that day. 
A) The bore was dirty and rusty..... A rifle that had three rounds fired through the barrel would not be dirty and rusty

B) Nobody reported the pungent smell of gun powder ( especially when Fritz opened the bolt)  If the rifle had been fired only an hour before it was found there would have been the smell of gunpowder on it.   And the same thing applies to the spent cartridges.

[Alan Ford]

Didja' ever notice that every and any evidence/claim that is made that is critical of Oswald has to be refuted by his defenders? Every single one.

Didja' ever notice that Mr Galbraith runs away from the challenge of explaining this document? Every single time.

[Bill Chapman]

Didja' ever notice that every and any evidence/claim that is made that is critical of Oswald has to be refuted by his defenders? Every single one. It doesn't matter how minor or innocuous. It doesn't have to be related to the assassination. Anything. They just don't like criticism of him.

Trump once said, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?"

Oswald could say, "I could shoot someone on Elm Street in Dallas and I wouldn't lose any of my supporters, OK?"

Both are right.

Speaking of Elm Street, I remember Bugliosi stating something to the tune of 'the only thing conspiracy books get right about the assassination is the time and location'

Note how Weidmann, Cakebread and others always have to pepper practically every response with 'spombleprofglidnoctobuns for brains' extract your head' 'a functioning brain, and the like.

Rather telling, eh wot.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Heck, Oswald can even do Trump one better.

Oswald: "I can shoot two people in the middle of the street and won't lose my supporters."

Take that Donald.

[Bill Chapman]

You're mistaking "speculation" for "investigation".

You mistake your opinion for fact

[John Iacoletti]

Didja' ever notice that every and any evidence/claim that is made that is critical of Oswald has to be refuted by his defenders?

How is Chapman's wild claim of a "speeding Oswald" (which btw isn't supported by any evidence) "critical of Oswald"?

[John Iacoletti]

Speaking of Elm Street, I remember Bugliosi stating something to the tune of 'the only thing conspiracy books get right about the assassination is the time and location'

YAWN