Unfortunately for you, sarcasm is not evidence. And you can’t actually determine what weapon killed Tippit. And Oswald wasn’t arrested with a revolver.
No they didn’t.
Thought what through? The strawman you just made up?
You can either prove that the gun that Hill pulled out of his pocket two hours later was ever in Oswald’s possession or you cannot.
And you cannot.
Unfortunately for you, sarcasm is not evidence.
Iacoletti, I'm the only one who is actually presenting evidence!
The BS you're proposing has to make some sort of narrative sense, but so far all you are doing is calling a bunch of people either mistaken or liars and that's not evidence, whereas my real world scenario is logical and is actually based on the evidence which so far after 55 years no one has ever proved was falsified, think about that for a minute!
And you can’t actually determine what weapon killed Tippit.
Exactly, so why set up Oswald with a weapon that fires bullets which most of the time cannot be exclusively linked to any weapon, only Oswald would be so devious.
And Oswald wasn’t arrested with a revolver.
Oswald admitted he was carrying a revolver and guess what, the revolver in evidence is the same revolver that was sent to his address and in addition the shells that Oswald was seen dropping were exclusively matched to Oswald's revolver. That's a Home Run!
No they didn’t.
Yes they did, Nine eyewitnesses who positively identified Oswald who all saw Oswald in the middle of the day all said he had a revolver/pistol, shells that were seen dropped by Oswald exclusively matched Oswald's revolver, Nicol provided pictorial evidence that a bullet in Tippit came exclusively from Oswald's revolver(CE 625), Oswald dropped his jacket under a car in a carpark(consciousness of guilt), Oswald punched a Cop, Oswald squeezed the trigger of his revolver and nearly killed Officer McDonald. And this is on top of the evidence that connects Oswald with Kennedy's death, why would Oswald kill Tippit if he wasn't on the run.
See Iacoletti I have a coherent narrative that makes sense and all you have is a mountain of speculation and worthless accusations, you should be ashamed of yourself!
You can either prove that the gun that Hill pulled out of his pocket two hours later was ever in Oswald’s possession or you cannot.
You've got to be joking, I'll ask again why would they swap the revolvers, what could that possibly achieve?
Btw what difference does it make if Hill had the revolver in his pocket for two seconds, two days or even two months, how does that possibly change the fact that it was the same revolver that was sent to Oswald's address and Oswald admitted he carried a revolver?
And most importantly, what proof do you have that Hill was involved or is this another typical cowardly attack on anyone but Oswald?
JohnM
