Try giving some thought to the TSBD

[Lance Payette]

Oswald's actions afterwards make perfect sense if he was being manipulated, duped into following a pattern. When the assassination happened, he could have realised that something was going wrong and that whatever plan he thought he was part of, was compromised and it spooked him.

Yes, but Oswald's post-assassination actions make even better sense in the Lone Nut narrative. They make equally good sense in my fanciful pro-Castro conspiracy, with Oswald as one gunman and his partner in crime on the Dal-Tex roof.

Again, this is the problem with the "panic" explanation. It's completely ad hoc. Those who don't want Oswald to be a gunman - which a large body of evidence suggests he was - are stuck with his post-assassination actions and thus must invent the "panic" explanation.

Far from making "perfect sense," the "panic" explanation is a tortured one. As long as Oswald wasn't firing shots, his post-assassination actions make little sense at all. Moreover, as I asked, why did he go into irrational panic mode after having been cool as a cucumber in the lunchroom encounter? How did he then become preternaturally calm under intense interrogation (by Fritz's own admission)? Makes no sense to me.

I thought you were suggesting no professional gunman would have chosen to fire from the 6th floor of the TSBD for all the reasons suggested in my original post in this thread, but perhaps you weren't. If I were conspiracy-oriented, simply planting Oswald's rifle and perhaps even having someone point it out the window a couple of times to seal the deal would make far more sense than having shots fired from there - but this simply isn't the evidence. That's my real point: An assassin other than Oswald firing from the 6th floor sniper's nest really makes no sense for all the reasons set forth in my original post.

[Dan O'meara]

Yes, but Oswald's post-assassination actions make even better sense in the Lone Nut narrative. They make equally good sense in my fanciful pro-Castro conspiracy, with Oswald as one gunman and his partner in crime on the Dal-Tex roof.

Again, this is the problem with the "panic" explanation. It's completely ad hoc. Those who don't want Oswald to be a gunman - which a large body of evidence suggests he was - are stuck with his post-assassination actions and thus must invent the "panic" explanation.

Far from making "perfect sense," the "panic" explanation is a tortured one. As long as Oswald wasn't firing shots, his post-assassination actions make little sense at all. Moreover, as I asked, why did he go into irrational panic mode after having been cool as a cucumber in the lunchroom encounter? How did he then become preternaturally calm under intense interrogation (by Fritz's own admission)? Makes no sense to me.

I thought you were suggesting no professional gunman would have chosen to fire from the 6th floor of the TSBD for all the reasons suggested in my original post in this thread, but perhaps you weren't. If I were conspiracy-oriented, simply planting Oswald's rifle and perhaps even having someone point it out the window a couple of times to seal the deal would make far more sense than having shots fired from there - but this simply isn't the evidence. That's my real point: An assassin other than Oswald firing from the 6th floor sniper's nest really makes no sense for all the reasons set forth in my original post.

with Oswald as one gunman and his partner in crime on the Dal-Tex roof

Hold on a second, a minute ago you were saying that Oswald was just a patsy in the TSBD building and the shooter was in the Dal-Tex!
Now you're saying Oswald was a gunman!
You're saying that instead of just having Oswald as a gunman, it's more feasible to have him as a gunman and another gunman in the Dal-Tex??
Isn't this really stupid?
Isn't is a very silly, ill thought out suggestion?
Is this because I pointed out that you'd forgot about the witnesses who saw a gunman in the SN window?
But wait on...what's this?

"...simply planting Oswald's rifle and perhaps even having someone point it out the window a couple of times to seal the deal..."

Huuuuuh??
In a couple of sentences you've gone from a two-shooter scenario, with Oswald being one of the shooters, to having some random guy just pointing a rifle out of the window??WTF?
To seal the deal??
Whaaaat?
Is this some kind of comedy routine?

"That's my real point: An assassin other than Oswald firing from the 6th floor sniper's nest really makes no sense for all the reasons set forth in my original post."

Hmmmm...
This seems to be your MO.
Come up with a stupid, unrealistic conspiracy scenario that you don't have the wit to maintain and then throw your hands in the air declaring you've proved that any conspiracy is unfeasible.
Let's see you turn that razor sharp mind on the flaws in your own theory.
Instead of flooding the forum with bogus, narcissistic threads let's see one of interest.

[Jim Hawthorn]

Yes, but Oswald's post-assassination actions make even better sense in the Lone Nut narrative.

That is true! But there are many of flaws in that theory too, which is why the debate is so vibrant here.

[John Iacoletti]

Good ol' John "EVEN IF THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU CITE IS LEGITIMATE -- And I Will Always Yell At The Top Of My Voice That It Isn't -- IT STILL DOESN'T ABSOLUTELY PROVE THAT OSWALD KILLED JFK" Iacoletti.

It doesn't even prove it a little bit.  Maybe a few more capital letters will help.

[John Iacoletti]

Oswald's "actions" can mean whatever the interpreter wants them to mean.  If you're looking at them through "Oswald-did-it"-colored glasses, then that's what you will see.

[John Iacoletti]

Putting aside the endless contrarian loon arguments, why would any conspiracy plan involve bringing the president to the assassin instead of the assassin to the president?  That is sheer stupidity.  It's idiocy to believe that the plan was to put a patsy in some random building and then manipulate the schedule and motorcade of the president to bring him by that specific building.  Much easier to control the movements of the patsy than the president.

Strawman "Smith", right on cue.  Why would a single designated patsy have to be chosen, and chosen in advance?

This just the same old argument, take 100001:  "This vast Conspiracy I made up in my head would never do something like X.  Therefore there was no conspiracy.  Therefore, Oswald did it."

[John Iacoletti]

Again, this is the problem with the "panic" explanation. It's completely ad hoc. Those who don't want Oswald to be a gunman - which a large body of evidence suggests he was - are stuck with his post-assassination actions and thus must invent the "panic" explanation.

That's quite a blind spot.  Those who do want Oswald to be a gunman have to invent this "fleeing the scene of the crime" narrative, even though there was nothing he demonstrably did that could be legitimately interpreted as "fleeing".