How Do LNers Deal With Givens?

[Tim Nickerson]

You previously posted - "There is ample evidence  that Oswald was in the sniper's nest at 12:30"
You've been asked to provide a single scrap of evidence that places Oswald in the SN at 12:30pm.
Are you going to do that or not?

Oswald's rifle being the assassination weapon, together with the fact that he had no alibi for the time of the shooting, places him in the SN at 12:30pm. That's not even considering his fingerprints and palmprints being found there.

[John Corbett]

Well the problem for me was the very beginning when Fritz started to interrogate Oswald without a proper way to record his statements. His scribbling notes which he then embellishes later are questionable.

How does that invalidate all the evidence that Oswald was the assassin?

So although I see that   this guy Oswald certainly was acting kind of arrogant and smirking seemingly enjoying his publicity, and being a Marxist and a traitor to his USMC oath, thus I believe him fully capable of being the assassin, its the details of how evidence was acquired that are troublesome to me.

I just have reservations that this looney tune Oswald was not afforded his constitutional right to have attorney present before he was interrogated. Then the line up was obviously not fair. And then the  chain of custody is muddy especially for CE. 399.

You seem willing to believe Oswald. Oswald lied when he claimed he was being denied legal representation. The president of the Dallas bar association had the same concerns as you and asked to speak to Oswald. He told Oswald that he was not a criminal attorney but that he could get a qualified criminal attorney to represent him. Oswald turned down the offer, apparently still hoping New York communist lawyer John Abt would agree to represent him. Although the assassination predated the landmark Miranda ruling, the DPD was already following the practice that would become law by allowing accused suspects to have legal representation during questioning.

Oswald's complaints about the line up being unfair were unfounded. He drew attention to himself by visibily complaining so the problems were self inflicted.

So as much as I tend towards the simplest solution being probably the best one , in this case there is so much snafu going on that it introduces reasonable doubt for me at least.

The only snafu was allowing Ruby entrance to the parking garage. That was just an unfortunate series of circumstances. The DPD wanted to transport Oswald to the county lock-up in an armored car which was a sensible security measure. They discovered the armored car was too tall to enter the garage and decided to transport him in a regular station wagon. The cop who was guarding the ramp the armored car failed to clear stepped away from his post briefly to hold up traffic so the armored car could vacate the ramp. It was at the moment that Jack Ruby arrived and walked down the unguarded ramp.

As for reasonable doubt of Oswald's guilt, there is absolutely none. If you have doubts about Oswald's guilt, there is nothing reasonable about them.

This is why my perspective is not hardcore CT but rather one which attempts to objectively verify for myself if the WC got it right. Some things are indisputable such as the MC rifle serial no. traced to a money order that leads to Oswald’s P.O. Box address. Other things however are not so definitive and in fact are of such level of snafu that it’s difficult to accept it was merely due to overlapping agency miscommunication.

The WC determined Oswald was the assassin and that there was no credible evidence he had any accomplices. That remains as true today as it was in 1964. Any doubts about Oswald's guilt or beliefs in conspiracy are based on conjured up evidence, not any real evidence.

[Dan O'meara]

Oswald's rifle being the assassination weapon, together with the fact that he had no alibi for the time of the shooting, places him in the SN at 12:30pm. That's not even considering his fingerprints and palmprints being found there.

I'm really surprised at you, Tim, for posting such utter nonsense.
Finding Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor DOES NOT place Oswald at the SN window at 12:30
Because Oswald had no alibi at the time of the shooting DOES NOT place him at the SN window at 12:30
Finding Oswald's prints on boxes in the SN DOES NOT place at the SN window at 12:30

There is no piece of evidence - NONE - that places Oswald at the SN window at 12:30
Your interpretation of these select pieces of evidence is that Oswald was the shooter - that's your interpretation of these particular pieces of evidence.
And your assumption is that if Oswald was the shooter, then he was at the SN window at 12:30pm.
It's a theory, Tim, and nothing more.
You never struck me as a true Nutter, in the mould of Corbett or Smith, but it appears you may well be.

[John Corbett]

I'm really surprised at you, Tim, for posting such utter nonsense.
Finding Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor DOES NOT place Oswald at the SN window at 12:30
Because Oswald had no alibi at the time of the shooting DOES NOT place him at the SN window at 12:30
Finding Oswald's prints on boxes in the SN DOES NOT place at the SN window at 12:30

There is no piece of evidence - NONE - that places Oswald at the SN window at 12:30
Your interpretation of these select pieces of evidence is that Oswald was the shooter - that's your interpretation of these particular pieces of evidence.
And your assumption is that if Oswald was the shooter, then he was at the SN window at 12:30pm.
It's a theory, Tim, and nothing more.
You never struck me as a true Nutter, in the mould of Corbett or Smith, but it appears you may well be.

There is no single piece of evidence that BY ITSELF places Oswald in the sniper's nest when the shots were fired. Taken as a whole, the body of evidence places Oswald in the sniper's nest when the shots were fired. For any single piece of evidence, you can come up with an unlikely but plausible alternative explanation that doesn't implicate Oswald. When you have to reach for the least likely explanation for so many pieces of evidence in order to argue for Oswald's innocence, the argument becomes laughable. If you dispute that fact, then give us a PLAUSIBLE alternative explanation that takes into account all of the evidence below.

1. Several witnesses saw a gunman in the southeast corner window of the 6th floor of the TSBD.
2. 3 spent shells were found at that window a short time later.
3. A rifle was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
4. The 3 spent shells were determined to have been fired by the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
5. Only 2 bullets were recovered from the shooting, both determined to have been fired by the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
6. A clear paper trail established that Oswald ordered the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
7. Oswald was photographed with the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
8. Oswald's palm print was found on the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
9. Fibers matching the shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested were found on the butt plate of the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
10. A bag was found nearby the sniper's nest with Oswald's finger and palm print on it. The bag had fibers that matched the blanket that Oswald has used to store the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
11. Oswald's fingerprints were found on the top of the boxes that had been stacked to form a rifle rest. The fingerprints were oriented as they would be had Oswald fired the shots from behind those boxes.

We also have Oswald's action following the shooter which point to his guilt in the JFKA. but I'll settle for a plausible explanation of the 10 items listed above that does no conclude that Oswald was the assassin.

My prediction is that if you accept this challenge at all, you will do what CTs always do when presented the evidence listed above. You will attack pieces of the evidence individually, but you will not present a single comprehensive narrative that explains all of these pieces collectively. No such explanation is possible. If it was, somebody would have come up with it by now. 

[Dan O'meara]

There is no single piece of evidence that BY ITSELF places Oswald in the sniper's nest when the shots were fired. Taken as a whole, the body of evidence places Oswald in the sniper's nest when the shots were fired. For any single piece of evidence, you can come up with an unlikely but plausible alternative explanation that doesn't implicate Oswald. When you have to reach for the least likely explanation for so many pieces of evidence in order to argue for Oswald's innocence, the argument becomes laughable. If you dispute that fact, then give us a PLAUSIBLE alternative explanation that takes into account all of the evidence below.

1. Several witnesses saw a gunman in the southeast corner window of the 6th floor of the TSBD.
2. 3 spent shells were found at that window a short time later.
3. A rifle was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
4. The 3 spent shells were determined to have been fired by the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
5. Only 2 bullets were recovered from the shooting, both determined to have been fired by the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
6. A clear paper trail established that Oswald ordered the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
7. Oswald was photographed with the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
8. Oswald's palm print was found on the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
9. Fibers matching the shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested were found on the butt plate of the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
10. A bag was found nearby the sniper's nest with Oswald's finger and palm print on it. The bag had fibers that matched the blanket that Oswald has used to store the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
11. Oswald's fingerprints were found on the top of the boxes that had been stacked to form a rifle rest. The fingerprints were oriented as they would be had Oswald fired the shots from behind those boxes.

We also have Oswald's action following the shooter which point to his guilt in the JFKA. but I'll settle for a plausible explanation of the 10 items listed above that does no conclude that Oswald was the assassin.

My prediction is that if you accept this challenge at all, you will do what CTs always do when presented the evidence listed above. You will attack pieces of the evidence individually, but you will not present a single comprehensive narrative that explains all of these pieces collectively. No such explanation is possible. If it was, somebody would have come up with it by now.

There is no single piece of evidence that BY ITSELF places Oswald in the sniper's nest when the shots were fired.

I've not bothered reading past this opening line as I've no doubt it's the usual WC arselicking nothingness.
You previously posted - "There is ample evidence that Oswald was in the sniper's nest at 12:30"
There is no evidence that Oswald was in the SN at 12:30.
It's good to see you back-tracking on this nonsense and throwing Tim under the bus at the same time.

As I had to inform Tim, your interpretation of the select pieces of evidence you choose to interpret is your interpretation. And that's all it is.
The assumptions you draw from this interpretation are just your assumptions. And that's all they are.
Your theory is your theory.
Jumping up and down and insisting it's a fact, like some petulant child, means nothing.

LATER EDIT: I couldn't resist and read your post.
I'm so glad I did or I would have missed the challenge:

give us a PLAUSIBLE alternative explanation that takes into account all of the evidence below.

Oswald was framed using his own rifle.

That's why the eye-witnesses described a man wearing clothes Oswald wasn't wearing and didn't own.
It's why Euins described the shooter having a distinctive bald spot on top of his head which he could only see when the shooter tilted his head to look down the rifle. This would require the shooter to tilt his head to the left demonstrating he was a left-handed shooter - which Oswald wasn't.
Euins also failed to notice a telescopic sight on the rifle even though he described it in detail and recalled the shooter taking aim down the rifle.
Brennan, the only other witness who saw the rifle while it was being used, also failed to notice a telescopic sight.
Reportedly, Oswald stated he was on the first floor having lunch in the Domino Room when he saw Junior Jarman and Hank Norman. Thanks to the testimonies of Jarman and Norman we know the only time this would have been possible was after they entered the back door of the TSBD building around 12:23pm

And that's before getting into all the evidence demonstrating how the Warren Commission fabricated and omitted evidence in order to create a false narrative regarding what took place on the 6th floor before the assassination - the subject of this thread.

[John Corbett]

There is no single piece of evidence that BY ITSELF places Oswald in the sniper's nest when the shots were fired.

I've not bothered reading past this opening line as I've no doubt it's the usual WC arselicking nothingness.
You previously posted - "There is ample evidence that Oswald was in the sniper's nest at 12:30"
There is no evidence that Oswald was in the SN at 12:30.
It's good to see you back-tracking on this nonsense and throwing Tim under the bus at the same time.

As I had to inform Tim, your interpretation of the select pieces of evidence you choose to interpret is your interpretation. And that's all it is.
The assumptions you draw from this interpretation are just your assumptions. And that's all they are.
Your theory is your theory.
Jumping up and down and insisting it's a fact, like some petulant child, means nothing.

LATER EDIT: I couldn't resist and read your post.
I'm so glad I did or I would have missed the challenge:

give us a PLAUSIBLE alternative explanation that takes into account all of the evidence below.

Oswald was framed using his own rifle.

That's why the eye-witnesses described a man wearing clothes Oswald wasn't wearing and didn't own.
It's why Euins described the shooter having a distinctive bald spot on top of his head which he could only see when the shooter tilted his head to look down the rifle. This would require the shooter to tilt his head to the left demonstrating he was a left-handed shooter - which Oswald wasn't.
Euins also failed to notice a telescopic sight on the rifle even though he described it in detail and recalled the shooter taking aim down the rifle.
Brennan, the only other witness who saw the rifle while it was being used, also failed to notice a telescopic sight.
Reportedly, Oswald stated he was on the first floor having lunch in the Domino Room when he saw Junior Jarman and Hank Norman. Thanks to the testimonies of Jarman and Norman we know the only time this would have been possible was after they entered the back door of the TSBD building around 12:23pm

And that's before getting into all the evidence demonstrating how the Warren Commission fabricated and omitted evidence in order to create a false narrative regarding what took place on the 6th floor before the assassination - the subject of this thread.

As is SOP for CTs, you completely fail the challenge to present an alternative narrative that explains the body of evidence and instead choose to use the diversion of attacking the WC narrative. The reason the CTs ALWAYS resort to this tactic is because they know there is no plausible alternative explanation of the evidence. The WCR wins by default.

[Dan O'meara]

As is SOP for CTs, you completely fail the challenge to present an alternative narrative that explains the body of evidence and instead choose to use the diversion of attacking the WC narrative. The reason the CTs ALWAYS resort to this tactic is because they know there is no plausible alternative explanation of the evidence. The WCR wins by default.

I answered the challenge.
You asked for a plausible alternative explanation that accounted for your so-called list of evidence and that's exactly what I did.

The WCR wins by default.

That's what this is for you, isn't it - a competition.
What a child you are.