Poll claims Oswald seen as a-hole

[John Iacoletti]

The Kooks seem to be under the impression that they've proven Oswald was in the Domino Room at 12:25 to 12:28 (time varies by Loon),

No, the kooks are under the impression that they’ve proven that Oswald killed JFK.

[Richard Smith]

The Kooks seem to be under the impression that they've proven Oswald was in the Domino Room at 12:25 to 12:28 (time varies by Loon), the Ninja Vicky Adams left the window immediately and was on the first floor in less than a minute, and that Garner was so disinterested in the assassination aftermath she had her eyes locked on the back stairs in less than a minute.

These guys hate authority, expert analysis and established procedure. They think they're smarter than everyone else. There's no reasoning with them; they'll just die off and fade away like the Lincoln Assassinologists who promoted their Vatican theory.

Yes, there is no hope of convincing them with logic, reason, or facts.  If they were capable of applying these concepts, they wouldn't have come to these conclusions in the first place.  What amuses me to no end is that someone like Martin is full of himself making a BS case that Oswald couldn't have gone down the stairs unnoticed based on his subjective second-by-second analysis of witness recollections.  As though the witnesses he cites couldn't be off by the few seconds it would have taken to allow Oswald to pass down the stairs.   Regardless, the stairs were the only means for Oswald to have made it from the 6th floor to the lunchroom in time for the Baker encounter.  If Oswald couldn't have used them as Martin concludes, then that eliminates Oswald as the assassin.  But Martin won't confirm this is his position.  The only possible implication of his analysis being valid.  He won't say that he believes Oswald is innocent or that there must have been a conspiracy to frame him even though that is the only possible conclusion to draw from accepting his claim.  Astounding.

[Martin Weidmann]

Yes, there is no hope of convincing them with logic, reason, or facts.  If they were capable of applying these concepts, they wouldn't have come to these conclusions in the first place.  What amuses me to no end is that someone like Martin is full of himself making a BS case that Oswald couldn't have gone down the stairs unnoticed based on his subjective second-by-second analysis of witness recollections.  As though the witnesses he cites couldn't be off by the few seconds it would have taken to allow Oswald to pass down the stairs.   Regardless, the stairs were the only means for Oswald to have made it from the 6th floor to the lunchroom in time for the Baker encounter.  If Oswald couldn't have used them as Martin concludes, then that eliminates Oswald as the assassin.  But Martin won't confirm this is his position.  The only possible implication of his analysis being valid.  He won't say that he believes Oswald is innocent or that there must have been a conspiracy to frame him even though that is the only possible conclusion to draw from accepting his claim.  Astounding.

Yes, there is no hope of convincing them with logic, reason, or facts. 

Says the guy who finds it completely reasonable to make up stuff, ignore basic facts and calling his own flawed opinions "logic"

What amuses me to no end is that someone like Martin is full of himself making a BS case that Oswald couldn't have gone down the stairs unnoticed based on his subjective second-by-second analysis of witness recollections.  As though the witnesses he cites couldn't be off by the few seconds it would have taken to allow Oswald to pass down the stairs.

Hilarious. There isn't a witness who has stated a specific time frame and there isn't anybody claiming those non-existent estimates could be off by a few seconds. That's just another of your strawman. You can moan and whine all you want but the bottom line is still that you can not explain how Oswald managed to get down the stairs unnoticed and you never will be able to do so.

To even argue that somebody like Dorothy Garner, who was standing near the stairs on the 4th floor, could possibly have failed to see and/or hear Oswald coming down from the 5th floor and crossing the landing is preposterous. The wooden floors and stairs in that old building made it impossible for anybody standing near the stairs not to hear anybody on the stairs. If you ever had been inside the building, you would have known that. But as you are only a keyboard jockey, you clearly haven't got a clue.

He won't say that he believes Oswald is innocent or that there must have been a conspiracy to frame him even though that is the only possible conclusion to draw from accepting his claim.  Astounding.

What is actually astounding is your stupidity. You still haven't figured out that when I say that I don't believe Oswald could have come down the stairs unnoticed, it's not a claim but an opinion, based on what I know so far. And opinions can be changed if somebody, who claims with absolute certainty that Oswald was on the 6th floor (that would be you), can explain how he could have managed to get down the stairs unnoticed. So far, all I have gotten from you are deflection, vague comments, personal attacks and just about anything else except an answer to my question, so I have no reason to change my opinion.

Yes, there is no hope of convincing them with logic misrepresentions of the evidence, reason assumptions based on nothing but thin air, or facts made up fairytales.

There, I fixed it for you


Btw I look forward to the next episode of "how to avoid answering a basic question because I don't like the answer"

[John Iacoletti]

Yes, there is no hope of convincing them with logic, reason, or facts.

Says the guy with no logic, reason, or facts.

What amuses me is that “Richard” is full of himself making a BS case that there is evidence placing Oswald on the sixth floor at 12:30, and instead of presenting any he desperately tries to divert by strawmanning Martin.

[Richard Smith]

Yes, there is no hope of convincing them with logic, reason, or facts. 

Says the guy who finds it completely reasonable to make up stuff, ignore basic facts and calling his own flawed opinions "logic"

What amuses me to no end is that someone like Martin is full of himself making a BS case that Oswald couldn't have gone down the stairs unnoticed based on his subjective second-by-second analysis of witness recollections.  As though the witnesses he cites couldn't be off by the few seconds it would have taken to allow Oswald to pass down the stairs.

Hilarious. There isn't a witness who has stated a specific time frame and there isn't anybody claiming those non-existent estimates could be off by a few seconds. That's just another of your strawman. You can moan and whine all you want but the bottom line is still that you can not explain how Oswald managed to get down the stairs unnoticed and you never will be able to do so.

To even argue that somebody like Dorothy Garner, who was standing near the stairs on the 4th floor, could possibly have failed to see and/or hear Oswald coming down from the 5th floor and crossing the landing is preposterous. The wooden floors and stairs in that old building made it impossible for anybody standing near the stairs not to hear anybody on the stairs. If you ever had been inside the building, you would have known that. But as you are only a keyboard jockey, you clearly haven't got a clue.

He won't say that he believes Oswald is innocent or that there must have been a conspiracy to frame him even though that is the only possible conclusion to draw from accepting his claim.  Astounding.

What is actually astounding is your stupidity. You still haven't figured out that when I say that I don't believe Oswald could have come down the stairs unnoticed, it's not a claim but an opinion, based on what I know so far. And opinions can be changed if somebody, who claims with absolute certainty that Oswald was on the 6th floor (that would be you), can explain how he could have managed to get down the stairs unnoticed. So far, all I have gotten from you are deflection, vague comments, personal attacks and just about anything else except an answer to my question, so I have no reason to change my opinion.

There, I fixed it for you


Btw I look forward to the next episode of "how to avoid answering a basic question because I don't like the answer"

So many words but again no answer.   Do you accept the only possible implication of your conclusion that Oswald could not have come down the stairs unnoticed or not?  If he didn't come down the stairs as you claim, then he couldn't be the assassin.  Is that your position or not?  It's a simple question.

[Martin Weidmann]

So many words but again no answer.   Do you accept the only possible implication of your conclusion that Oswald could not have come down the stairs unnoticed or not?  If he didn't come down the stairs as you claim, then he couldn't be the assassin.  Is that your position or not?  It's a simple question.

The only one who is desperately trying to avoid to answer a simple question is you. It's beyond hilarious!

Stop playing silly games and just provide an explanation for how Oswald could have gone down the stairs unnoticed within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot.

Did you take lessons from Mike Lindell, who also constantly claims to have conclusive evidence and never produces it?

[Walt Cakebread]

The only one who is desperately trying to avoid to answer a simple question is you. It's beyond hilarious!

Stop playing silly games and just provide an explanation for how Oswald could have gone down the stairs unnoticed within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot.

Did you take lessons from Mike Lindell, who also constantly claims to have conclusive evidence and never produces it?

Anybody with conclusive evidence would hold it high and announce that he has that conclusive evidence, and show it to the whole wide world.

I saw a photo in this morning's paper....  A Trump protestor was holding a placard  that read...." Nobody is above the law"

Watta  naive  simpleton!!.....  He had to be a LNer.....