When the SN was built

[Jack Nessan]

I don’t know how to make this any simpler for you. You claimed that I believe that Williams or Givens constructed a sniper’s nest. I don’t believe that, and I never said anything like that. You made it up. It’s a strawman. Now what was the thing I posted that was “completely wrong”? And answer that without making up another strawman. Use a direct quote.

The only one who seems to be in anguish is you, trying to do backflips to turn this into evidence of murder.

We know nothing of the kind.

 , how? And even if this is true, this is evidence of …. what? What about the way Frazier said he carried his package? And the fact that they described a different package than the magic, invisible CE142?

  “Proven” how?

Also  . Brennan didn’t even say that.

Maybe not for somebody who bases his “understandings” on claims that are false, unsubstantiated, or irrelevant.

No, Strawman has just now replaced gaslighting as the popular term to use to escape a faltering argument. 

There were only three possible choices to build the SN. Givens, BRW, and LHO. Pick your favorite. All of the men working on the 6th floor that morning was cleared. LHO’s prints are on every piece of evidence. He purchased the rifle and had no alibi during the assassination. The Rolling Reader boxes specifically have his prints on them and were moved from the other 8 boxes and they were specifically used in the construction of the rifle rest. They were moved there for the express purpose of being used to build the SN. Brennan saw and stated he saw the second shot being fired from the SN. 

[Alan Ford]

We have seen it insinuated many times that the absence of anyone reporting seeing LHO on the front steps during the assassination is evidence that he couldn’t have been there.

The photographic record indicates that many of those people who said they didn’t see LHO on the steps were, um, actually there during the assassination.

Yes, looking at the motorcade. Your point?

[Alan Ford]

It's revealing that every piece of evidence they demand be shown in the assassination of JFK to persuade them of Oswald's guilt can be provided in the shooting of Tippit. If they complain about the absence of "A" in one case it can be shown to exist in another. Their demands in the second case are met.

The two cases then can be a sort of test or comparison to show the sincerity of a person's demands.

The 'investigating' authorities (your heroes) felt a lot more confident they could make a Tippit charge stick than a JFK charge. Knowing as they did, very early on, that Mr. Oswald had been in the doorway for the motorcade, they couldn't go as far there towards implicating him definitively as shooter: too big a hostage to fortune. So their shenanigans went all in on circumstantial/'best inference' stuff. 

Hence (e.g.) the paraffin tests: 'incriminating' for Tippit; 'inconclusive' for JFK.

 

[Charles Collins]

Yes, looking at the motorcade. Your point?

No photographic evidence of anyone who stated they didn’t see LHO on the stairs near or on the stairs between the sixth floor and second floor during the time in question. That’s one significant difference.

[Alan Ford]

No photographic evidence of anyone who stated they didn’t see LHO on the stairs near or on the stairs between the sixth floor and second floor during the time in question. That’s one significant difference.

Do you have photographic evidence of Mr. Truly and Officer Baker in the second-floor lunchroom during the time in question? And does the lack of such lead you to doubt their claims?

[Charles Collins]

Do you have photographic evidence of Mr. Truly and Officer Baker in the second-floor lunchroom during the time in question? And does the lack of such lead you to doubt their claims?

Timed trials and film of Baker entering the building are significant.

[Martin Weidmann]

Timed trials and film of Baker entering the building are significant.

The only thing that you find significant is anything that fits your predetermined opinion about what allegedly happened.