S. M. Holland's "Smoke" on the Grassy Knoll

Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
Marjan Rynkiewicz, Fred Litwin

Author Topic: S. M. Holland's "Smoke" on the Grassy Knoll  (Read 1393 times)

Online Tom Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3298
Re: S. M. Holland's "Smoke" on the Grassy Knoll
« Reply #64 on: Today at 07:51:34 PM »
One can only wonder how many evil, evil Deep State bad guys and evil, evil Deep State bad gals were involved in the planning, the patsy-ing, the forging and planting of all of the Oswald-incriminating evidence, the shooting, the getting-away, the altering of all of the photos, films and X-rays, and the all-important (and evidently ongoing!) cover up!
« Last Edit: Today at 07:54:03 PM by Tom Graves »

Online John Corbett

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
Re: S. M. Holland's "Smoke" on the Grassy Knoll
« Reply #65 on: Today at 08:43:06 PM »
     So a prosecuting attorney proffers to the jury that the Proof of a defendant being at the murder scene is, "he put himself there"? That's, "My Cousin Vinny" material.
     It's Oswald's rifle, so naturally there would be traces of his shirt, prints, skin, etc on the rifle. So what? Same goes for anything connected to the blanket.
     I believe that Oswald was supposed to establish his alibi by being inside the lunchroom at lunchtime. When Officer Baker confronted Oswald so quickly, Oswald knew something had gone wrong. Maybe Oswald had that false ID on him, and he thought he was lucky that Officer Baker did Not pat him down? So he split via the Huge Gates.

Any jury of consisting of people with common sense when presented with the evidence I listed would have no trouble coming to the conclusion that Oswald was the assassin and have no reasonable doubt about that. It is only fanatical Oswald deniers who try to create doubt where none exists. The only plausible scenario that takes into account all of the evidence I presented is that Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK. Every piece of evidence I listed is probative of Oswald's guilt. You might be able to come up with an unlikely theoretical alternative explanation for any one piece of evidence, but when you have to gravitate for the least likely explanation for every piece of evidence I presented, plausibility goes out the window. There is no plausible argument for Oswald's not being the gunman that takes into account, the entire body of evidence.

If you dispute what I just wrote, present us with an alternative. Explain how Oswald's FRESH palm print got on the underside of the barrel which would only be exposed when the rifle was disassembled. Explain why the only fibers on the butt plate of the rifle were the ones from the shirt he was wearing that day. Explain why only his prints were on the rifle bag. Explain how fibers matching his blanket were found on the bag. Explain why his fingerprints were on the boxes stacked by the window oriented as they would be if he was looking down Elm St.

While we're on the subject of evidence, what evidence do you have that "Oswald was supposed to establish his alibi by being inside the lunchroom at lunchtime". What evidence do you have that "Oswald knew something was wrong". Were these the best excuses you could come up with to explain why Oswald did so many things that day that made him look guilty? You continue to dodge every challenge I've made to you to present evidence of your beliefs. 62 years of futility and the conspiracy hobbyists keep flailing away.

Online Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4815
Re: S. M. Holland's "Smoke" on the Grassy Knoll
« Reply #66 on: Today at 09:28:12 PM »

  Being in the lunchroom did Not make Oswald "look guilty". Like I said, I believe he was involved. As to his being a shooter, why use your own rifle, carry it across the 6th floor, and then hide it there? You believe he planned bringing the rifle to work, constructed the sniper's nest, fires the shots and then goes into scramble mode after that? This doesn't fit.