JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Bill Chapman on August 28, 2022, 02:34:27 PM
-
https://www.theonion.com/poll-68-of-americans-believe-lee-harvey-oswald-acted-1819885391
WASHINGTON—More than 50 years after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, a Gallup poll published Thursday revealed that 68 percent of Americans now believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted like a total asshole. “Remarkably, our polling data reveal that more than two-thirds of U.S. citizens are now convinced that Oswald acted like a complete prick in planning and carrying out the brutal shooting of JFK,” said Gallup CEO Jim Clifton, adding that of those surveyed, nearly half of respondents were sure or very sure that Oswald acted like a “huge xxxxxxx jerk” in Dallas, attributing the shift in public perception to mounting evidence showing that camping out at the Texas Book Depository with the express intention of murdering the 35th U.S. president was “a total dick move.” “Additionally, 11 percent said they initially gave Oswald the benefit of the doubt, but now believe with absolute certainty that this guy was just a jackass, pure and simple. Interestingly, 7 percent now say there might have even been a second asshole involved in the shooting.” The survey also revealed that 18 percent of Americans were confident Oswald had acted “pretty damn cool.”
-
WASHINGTON—More than 50 years after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, a Gallup poll published Thursday revealed that 68 percent of Americans now believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted like a total asshole. “Remarkably, our polling data reveal that more than two-thirds of U.S. citizens are now convinced that Oswald acted like a complete prick in planning and carrying out the brutal shooting of JFK,” said Gallup CEO Jim Clifton, adding that of those surveyed, nearly half of respondents were sure or very sure that Oswald acted like a “huge fucking jerk” in Dallas, attributing the shift in public perception to mounting evidence showing that camping out at the Texas Book Depository with the express intention of murdering the 35th U.S. president was “a total dick move.” “Additionally, 11 percent said they initially gave Oswald the benefit of the doubt, but now believe with absolute certainty that this guy was just a jackass, pure and simple. Interestingly, 7 percent now say there might have even been a second asshole involved in the shooting.” The survey also revealed that 18 percent of Americans were confident Oswald had acted “pretty damn cool.”
Bill - you must be incredibly bored or enjoy writing creative fiction. Or both.
-
Bill - you must be incredibly bored or enjoy writing creative fiction. Or both.
Thumb1:
Boring and desperately seeking attention is a better way to describe the .....
-
I think Chapman would score higher on such a poll.
-
WASHINGTON—More than 50 years after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, a Gallup poll published Thursday revealed that 68 percent of Americans now believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted like a total asshole. “Remarkably, our polling data reveal that more than two-thirds of U.S. citizens are now convinced that Oswald acted like a complete prick in planning and carrying out the brutal shooting of JFK,” said Gallup CEO Jim Clifton, adding that of those surveyed, nearly half of respondents were sure or very sure that Oswald acted like a “huge fucking jerk” in Dallas, attributing the shift in public perception to mounting evidence showing that camping out at the Texas Book Depository with the express intention of murdering the 35th U.S. president was “a total dick move.” “Additionally, 11 percent said they initially gave Oswald the benefit of the doubt, but now believe with absolute certainty that this guy was just a jackass, pure and simple. Interestingly, 7 percent now say there might have even been a second asshole involved in the shooting.” The survey also revealed that 18 percent of Americans were confident Oswald had acted “pretty damn cool.”
I couldn't decide which of these two cartoons to post, so I am posting both of them...
(https://i.vgy.me/eVhkmt.png)
(https://i.vgy.me/E0Z3NZ.png)
-
Bill - you must be incredibly bored or enjoy writing creative fiction. Or both.
Good grief! This same thread done 4 years ago-----Posted up by [you guessed it] Bill Chapman :D
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,957.msg21045.html#msg21045
-
Good grief! This same thread done 4 years ago-----Posted up by [you guessed it] Bill Chapman :D
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,957.msg21045.html#msg21045
Shhhh... I'm trying to catch Wally taking the same bait again
-
Bill - you must be incredibly bored or enjoy writing creative fiction. Or both.
He's desperate.... He knows that Lee Oswald was in the 1st floor lunch room when Junior Jarman and Harold Norman walked past that lunchroom at 12:27..... And he knows that Lee couldn't have been on the sixth floor and shooting JFK at 12:30.....
-
He's desperate.... He knows that Lee Oswald was in the 1st floor lunch room when Junior Jarman and Harold Norman walked past that lunchroom at 12:27..... And he knows that Lee couldn't have been on the sixth floor and shooting JFK at 12:30.....
No, Fred the giraffe saw him peering down from my 'slam dunk' logo
Besides, I'm talking about your goofball take on a poll that didn't happen:
(https://i.postimg.cc/rw373WgB/......-POLL-ONION.png)
Meantime, here's Fred
(https://i.postimg.cc/xC69PfBd/281-LEANING-FRED.png)
-
Shhhh... I'm trying to catch Wally taking the same bait again
Seems you can wait until hell freezes over. But thank you for exposing so clearly what your real purpose here is, troll.
-
Seems you can wait until hell freezes over. But thank you for exposing so clearly what your real purpose here is, troll.
I'm here to observe
No waiting needed:
--------------------
PROOF OF WALT'S
SILLINESS
---------------------
(https://i.postimg.cc/rw373WgB/......-POLL-ONION.png)
-
I'm here to observe
No waiting needed:
--------------------
PROOF OF WALT'S
SILLINESS
---------------------
(https://i.postimg.cc/rw373WgB/......-POLL-ONION.png)
I'm here to observe
Sure, you are :D
-
Re: Poll: 68% of Americans Believe Lee Harvey Oswald Acted Like an ......
« Reply #22 on: November 01, 2019, 06:30:33 PM »
After another poll was taken...69% of the forum believe that with Bill Chapman---it is not an act.
Quote from: Thomas Graves on January 25, 2020, 01:21:05 PM---------------- "How do you know Lee Harvey Oswald even had an ......?" You have absolutely no proof.
Like opinions...everybody has one.
-
Good grief! This same thread done 4 years ago-----Posted up by [you guessed it] Bill Chapman :D
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,957.msg21045.html#msg21045
Good Grief..... That would be what many would experience if Lil Chappie was stricken with broken keyboard...
-
I'm here to observe
You're here to disrupt.
-
You're here to disrupt.
He might not be educated enough to understand this..
-
I'm here to observe
Sure, you are :D
Enough to watch you smoke yourself out into the light
-
I'm here to observe
Sure, you are :D
Enough to watch you smoke yourself out into the light
Is this another example of your lack of education being on full display?
-
You're here to disrupt.
Give one example
-
Give one example
You're not very popular ....are you Chappie?
-
I'm here to observe
Sure, you are :D
I just provided proof re Walt's silliness
I just observed you ignoring that proof
-
I just provided proof re Walt's silliness
I just observed you ignoring that proof
I usually ignore BS coming from a troll
-
Is this another example of your lack of education being on full display?
You keep sounding like a high school drop out. With no skills.
-
You keep sounding like a high school drop out. With no skills.
Sound like?
Have you heard me talk?
Didn't they teach you that written words make no sound..... Oh wait,......without education you wouldn't know something like that.
-
Sound like?
Have you heard me talk?
Didn't they teach you that written words make no sound..... Oh wait,......without education you wouldn't know something like that.
[/quote)
You keep showing us how badly you misinterpret what is being taught.
You are uncommonly defensive about your alleged education.
-
Sound like?
Have you heard me talk?
Didn't they teach you that written words make no sound..... Oh wait,......without education you wouldn't know something like that.
You keep showing us how badly you misinterpret what is being taught.
You are uncommonly defensive about your alleged education.
You keep showing us how badly you misinterpret what is being taught.
Talking to a mirror? Or do you actually think written words make sounds?
You are uncommonly defensive about your alleged education.
I don't have to defend my education. I had one, you clearly didn't. That's all
Nice try, trying to change the subject, though..... :D With a better eduction you might have succeeded.
-
I usually ignore BS coming from a troll
Looks like you can't tell when a spoof is a spoof, either
-
Looks like you can't tell when a spoof is a spoof, either
What spoof would that be? The one I ignored?
Cowardly hiding behind "it was only a joke" when something blows up in your face is so pathetically weak.
And no, it will not get you off the hook this time.
-
You keep showing us how badly you misinterpret what is being taught.
Talking to a mirror? Or do you actually think written words make sounds?
You are uncommonly defensive about your alleged education.
I don't have to defend my education. I had one, you clearly didn't. That's all
Nice try, trying to change the subject, though..... :D With a better eduction you might have succeeded.
You probably don't even believe the dictionaries
sound like (something)
1. To give the impression of something being the case based on what one hears or is told.
It sounds like you're really unhappy in your job, at least from everything you've told me so far.
The team gave me an update on their progress, and it sounded like everything was going smoothly.
2. To give the impression of being a certain way based on what one hears or is told.
Wow, that sounds like a fabulous vacation!
It certainly sounded like a difficult situation that they had found themselves in.
See also: like, sound
-
You probably don't even believe the dictionaries
sound like (something)
1. To give the impression of something being the case based on what one hears or is told.
It sounds like you're really unhappy in your job, at least from everything you've told me so far.
The team gave me an update on their progress, and it sounded like everything was going smoothly.
2. To give the impression of being a certain way based on what one hears or is told.
Wow, that sounds like a fabulous vacation!
It certainly sounded like a difficult situation that they had found themselves in.
See also: like, sound
Wow, the desperation....
1. To give the impression of something being the case based on what one hears or is told.
2. To give the impression of being a certain way based on what one hears or is told.
Let me guess, you're next crappy argument is going to be that being told something could also be in writing.
Too bad that I didn't tell you anything in either manner, so your use of "sounds like" was wrong from the beginning.
Keep going, I'm sure you'll find a way out of the mess you've created. But then again, maybe not :D
-
Oh you can say 'sounds like' :)
It sounds like everybody's picking on Bill.
Mr Chapman failed to supply the onionhead link to that fake poll.
What is funny is the thread title ---Poll claims Oswald seen as a hole :D
You can always fix the title as long as there has been no reply to the thread.
If you do your own 1st reply?....I don't know.
-
What spoof would that be? The one I ignored?
Cowardly hiding behind "it was only a joke" when something blows up in your face is so pathetically weak.
And no, it will not get you off the hook this time.
What spoof would that be? The one I ignored?
_'The Onion' spoof about a fake poll on the state of Oswald's ...... quotient
Cowardly hiding behind "it was only a joke" when something blows up in your face is so pathetically weak.
_ Where did I say its only a joke(unless I was describing what a spoof is)
And no, it will not get you off the hook this time.
_ What hook might that be. Pretty sure I have the right to respond to those who bad-mouth me.
And you do nothing but insult every last LN no matter how respected they are.
-
Wow, the desperation....
1. To give the impression of something being the case based on what one hears or is told.
2. To give the impression of being a certain way based on what one hears or is told.
Let me guess, you're next crappy argument is going to be that being told something could also be in writing.
Too bad that I didn't tell you anything in either manner, so your use of "sounds like" was wrong from the beginning.
Keep going, I'm sure you'll find a way out of the mess you've created. But then again, maybe not :D
Still sounds like you didn't complete your education
-
What spoof would that be? The one I ignored?
_'The Onion' spoof about a fake poll on the state of Oswald's ...... quotient
So, it was the one I ignored
Cowardly hiding behind "it was only a joke" when something blows up in your face is so pathetically weak.
_ Where did I say its only a joke(unless I was describing what a spoof is)
You said it was a spoof, which is the same thing
And no, it will not get you off the hook this time.
_ What hook might that be. Pretty sure I have the right to respond to those who bad-mouth me.
And you do nothing but insult every last LN no matter how respected they are.
Of course do you have that right. Even when you provoke people, as you constantly try to do. Just don't whine like a little girl when you get feedback you can't handle.
And you do nothing but insult every last LN no matter how respected they are.
What can I say? I just don't know any LN that is respected or deserves my respect. Any utterly dishonest weasel who makes claims (including making up stuff) and then is unable to defend them doesn't deserve respect.
-
Still sounds like you didn't complete your education
The opinion of a non-educated fool, who keeps on making the same mistake, isn't of any value or significance.
-
So, it was the one I ignored
You said it was a spoof, which is the same thing
Of course do you have that right. Even when you provoke people, as you constantly try to do. Just don't whine like a little girl when you get feedback you can't handle.
And you do nothing but insult every last LN no matter how respected they are.
What can I say? I just don't know any LN that is respected or deserves my respect. Any utterly dishonest weasel who makes claims (including making up stuff) and then is unable to defend them doesn't deserve respect.
Wow, that’s the last post of yours that I will ever read. I promise. >:(
-
Wow, that’s the last post of yours that I will ever read. I promise. >:(
Thank you.
-
What can I say? I just don't know any LN that is respected or deserves my respect. Any utterly dishonest weasel who makes claims (including making up stuff) and then is unable to defend them doesn't deserve respect.
Wow, that’s the last post of yours that I will ever read. I promise. >:(
I generally avoid engaging Weidmann, since the Black Pete thing. ::)
-
I generally avoid engaging Weidmann, since the Black Pete thing. ::)
:D
-
So, it was the one I ignored
You said it was a spoof, which is the same thing
Of course do you have that right. Even when you provoke people, as you constantly try to do. Just don't whine like a little girl when you get feedback you can't handle.
And you do nothing but insult every last LN no matter how respected they are.
What can I say? I just don't know any LN that is respected or deserves my respect. Any utterly dishonest weasel who makes claims (including making up stuff) and then is unable to defend them doesn't deserve respect.
In short, people who disagree with you.
Thanks so much for your always-useful information.
-
Oh you can say 'sounds like' :)
It sounds like everybody's picking on Bill.
Mr Chapman failed to supply the onionhead link to that fake poll.
What is funny is the thread title ---Poll claims Oswald seen as a hole :D
You can always fix the title as long as there has been no reply to the thread.
If you do your own 1st reply?....I don't know.
Paranoia reigns supreme in CT Wonderland
-
In short, people who disagree with you.
Thanks so much for your always-useful information.
You can't even get that right. No wonder you're an LN
-
You can't even get that right. No wonder you're an LN
I disagree with you
-
I disagree with you
No problem. You can disagree with me all you like.
I'll start to worry when you agree with me.
-
You can't even get that right. No wonder you're an LN
Keep in mind that Martin does not admit to being a CTer. Rather, he constantly berates LNers, nitpicks any evidence of Oswald's guilt by applying an impossible standard of proof, entertains any possibility of Oswald's innocence no matter how baseless or absurd, and thinks Oswald has an alibi for the moment of the assassination. So despite apparently believing that Oswald couldn't have done it, and by implication that the evidence linking Oswald to the crime was faked, he is just a neutral arbiter of the case who just happens to spend his every waking moment defending Oswald.
-
No problem. You can disagree with me all you like.
I'll start to worry when you agree with me.
Now that would be scary: There are more than enough zombies around here.
-
Keep in mind that Martin does not admit to being a CTer. Rather, he constantly berates LNers, nitpicks any evidence of Oswald's guilt by applying an impossible standard of proof, entertains any possibility of Oswald's innocence no matter how baseless or absurd, and thinks Oswald has an alibi for the moment of the assassination. So despite apparently believing that Oswald couldn't have done it, and by implication that the evidence linking Oswald to the crime was faked, he is just a neutral arbiter of the case who just happens to spend his every waking moment defending Oswald.
Stop lying.
thinks Oswald has an alibi for the moment of the assassination.
I have never thought or said anything of the kind
So despite apparently believing that Oswald couldn't have done it,
Again, I never said that I believe that.
by implication that the evidence linking Oswald to the crime was faked
Never claimed anything of the kind
who just happens to spend his every waking moment defending Oswald.
And yet another lie. I have never defended Oswald. In fact, I have always said that if the evidence showed Oswald did it, I would accept that. So, I don't defend Oswald, I merely scrutinize the evidence guys like you claim to have.
And when you start arguing that the mere fact that a rifle (which you claim, but can't prove, belongs to Oswald), is somehow evidence that he was present on the 6th floor at 12:30 on 11/22/63, then I call you out for your blatant stupidity or dishonesty (take your pick). That's not defending Oswald, it's just finding your "evidence" pathetically weak and most certainly not conclusive.
-
Keep in mind that Martin does not admit to being a CTer. Rather, he constantly berates LNers, nitpicks any evidence of Oswald's guilt by applying an impossible standard of proof, entertains any possibility of Oswald's innocence no matter how baseless or absurd, and thinks Oswald has an alibi for the moment of the assassination. So despite apparently believing that Oswald couldn't have done it, and by implication that the evidence linking Oswald to the crime was faked, he is just a neutral arbiter of the case who just happens to spend his every waking moment defending Oswald.
Typical "Richard" strawman BS:
Martin has said none of these things. Try looking in the mirror. You call anybody who disagrees with your pronouncements a "conspiracy theorist". You rattle off lists of BS claims and call them "evidence". You ignore any information to the contrary, and berate anyone with any other point of view.
-
Stop lying.
thinks Oswald has an alibi for the moment of the assassination.
I have never thought or said anything of the kind
So despite apparently believing that Oswald couldn't have done it,
Again, I never said that I believe that.
by implication that the evidence linking Oswald to the crime was faked
Never claimed anything of the kind
who just happens to spend his every waking moment defending Oswald.
And yet another lie. I have never defended Oswald. In fact, I have always said that if the evidence showed Oswald did it, I would accept that. So, I don't defend Oswald, I merely scrutinize the evidence guys like you claim to have.
And when you start arguing that the mere fact that a rifle (which you claim, but can't prove, belongs to Oswald), is somehow evidence that he was present on the 6th floor at 12:30 on 11/22/63, then I call you out for your blatant stupidity or dishonesty (take your pick). That's not defending Oswald, it's just finding your "evidence" pathetically weak and most certainly not conclusive.
Here we go. Round and round down the rabbit hole. You have gone on and on and on for weeks insisting that Oswald could not have come down the stairs from the 6th floor unnoticed after the assassination. And that there is no evidence he was on the 6th floor or pulled the trigger. So maybe reconcile those claims with how you have not concluded that Oswald is innocent. If he wasn't on the 6th floor and couldn't reach the lunchroom unnoticed from the 6th floor as you have claimed endlessly that rules him out as the assassin. Good grief.
-
Here we go. Round and round down the rabbit hole. You have gone on and on and on for weeks insisting that Oswald could not have come down the stairs from the 6th floor unnoticed after the assassination. And that there is no evidence he was on the 6th floor or pulled the trigger. So maybe reconcile those claims with how you have not concluded that Oswald is innocent. If he wasn't on the 6th floor and couldn't reach the lunchroom unnoticed from the 6th floor as you have claimed endlessly that rules him out as the assassin. Good grief.
You have gone on and on and on for weeks insisting that Oswald could not have come down the stairs from the 6th floor unnoticed after the assassination.
More dishonesty. For weeks I have been asking you how he could have come down the stairs unnoticed and to this day I still have no answer
And that there is no evidence he was on the 6th floor or pulled the trigger.
There isn't and you haven't been able to produce any, despite a multitude of requests to do so.
So maybe reconcile those claims with how you have not concluded that Oswald is innocent.
You seem very confused. Asking for evidence of his guilt (you claim there is, but never produce) isn't the same as concluding that he is innocent.
If he wasn't on the 6th floor and couldn't reach the lunchroom unnoticed from the 6th floor as you have claimed endlessly that rules him out as the assassin.
Except that I have never claimed he wasn't on the 6th floor nor that he couldn't reach the lunchroom unnoticed. That's just another one of your strawman.
Good grief.
Indeed. But let's try this again.... baby steps... Oswald may or may not have been on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 on 11/22/63. You don't know if he was and neither do I. So, for you to claim that he was, you just don't get to assume that he was. You need to provide evidence for it and the simple truth of the matter is that you haven't got any.
The same goes for reaching the lunchroom unnoticed. He may well have, but the evidence we now have speaks against it. So, again, you are going to have to explain how he managed to do that and so far you haven't been able to do the either.
This is most likely falling on deaf ears, but you should really try to listen and understand what somebody is actually saying instead of dismissing it outright and later making up an alternative version of what they said.
-
You have gone on and on and on for weeks insisting that Oswald could not have come down the stairs from the 6th floor unnoticed after the assassination.
More dishonesty. For weeks I have been asking you how he could have come down the stairs unnoticed and to this day I still have no answer
And that there is no evidence he was on the 6th floor or pulled the trigger.
There isn't and you haven't been able to produce any, despite a multitude of requests to do so.
So maybe reconcile those claims with how you have not concluded that Oswald is innocent.
You seem very confused. Asking for evidence of his guilt (you claim there is, but never produce) isn't the same as concluding that he is innocent.
If he wasn't on the 6th floor and couldn't reach the lunchroom unnoticed from the 6th floor as you have claimed endlessly that rules him out as the assassin.
Except that I have never claimed he wasn't on the 6th floor nor that he couldn't reach the lunchroom unnoticed. That's just another one of your strawman.
Good grief.
Indeed. But let's try this again.... baby steps... Oswald may or may not have been on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 on 11/22/63. You don't know if he was and neither do I. So, for you to claim that he was, you just don't get to assume that he was. You need to provide evidence for it and the simple truth of the matter is that you haven't got any.
The same goes for reaching the lunchroom unnoticed. He may well have, but the evidence we now have speaks against it. So, again, you are going to have to explain how he managed to do that and so far you haven't been able to do the either.
This is most likely falling on deaf ears, but you should really try to listen and understand what somebody is actually saying instead of dismissing it outright and later making up an alternative version of what they said.
So many words. If you don't believe Oswald could have escaped the 6th floor unnoticed (as you have stated repeatedly as though a fact) then he obviously could not be the assassin. Why is it so difficult for you to have the courage of your convictions instead of playing these games where you claim something is a fact but then deny the implications of your own claim? It is embarrassing. Even the most deranged JFK conspiracy theory is more worthy of respect than this cowardly defense attorney nonsense. You are like Inspector Clouseau who suspected everyone and suspected no one. It's all the more laughable that you take yourself so seriously with this approach.
The assassination took place at 12:30. Oswald was encountered in the lunchroom approximately 75 seconds later according to Martin. In order to reach the lunchroom as the assassin, Oswald would have to descend from the 6th floor to the lunchroom in that timeframe. Here is what Martin has said on the subject:
"If Oswald had come down the stairs within 75 seconds after the shots, he would have been seen by Dorothy Garner, who was standing next to the stairs on the 4th floor.
She heard Adams and Styles going down on the stairs and saw Baker and Truly come up. Somewhere inbetween these two events Oswald would have be passing the 4th floor. The reason Garner did not see him is simple; he didn't come down the stairs."
-
So many words. If you don't believe Oswald could have escaped the 6th floor unnoticed (as you have stated repeatedly as though a fact) then he obviously could not be the assassin. Why is it so difficult for you to have the courage of your convictions instead of playing these games where you claim something is a fact but then deny the implications of your own claim? It is embarrassing. Even the most deranged JFK conspiracy theory is more worthy of respect than this cowardly defense attorney nonsense. You are like Inspector Clouseau who suspected everyone and suspected no one. It's all the more laughable that you take yourself so seriously with this approach.
So many words.
You're a complete waste of time and oxygen. You are so damned arrogant that you actually think that your opinion is always the right one and, as a consequence, you don't need to pay any attention to what others say. You can always make up stuff as you go, right?
Btw, what is this "so many words" crap anyway? I've seen you use it time after time. Is it to signal that your brain has such a limited capacity that it can only process a certain (small) number of words in one go?
If you don't believe Oswald could have escaped the 6th floor unnoticed (as you have stated repeatedly as though a fact) then he obviously could not be the assassin.
Again, when did I ever claim that, "as though a fact"? This is what you get when you are so convinced of your own belief that you simply don't pay attention to what others actually say. Obviously, this lie is just another distraction to draw attention away from the fact that you can not explain how he could have done it. It's the strategy of a loser.
You claimed that Oswald could have gone down the stairs unnoticed. I've asked you for the evidence for that claim a thousand times by now. Where is? And if you haven't got it, just be honest for once and admit it, instead of desperately trying to turn the argument around.
Why is it so difficult for you to have the courage of your convictions instead of playing these games where you claim something is a fact but then deny the implications of your own claim? It is embarrassing.
You mean the courage of my convictions as you (utterly mistaken and dishonestly) feel they should be. The only one making claims is you. According to you Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 on 11/22/63 (claim one), he was in the sn as the shooter who killed Kennedy (claim 2) and he managed to get downstairs unnoticed (claim 3). The implications of those claims are that you need to present evidence for them and, oh what a surprise, you haven't got any. So, deflection is the game. It's pathethic.
-
The assassination took place at 12:30. Oswald was encountered in the lunchroom approximately 75 seconds later according to Martin. In order to reach the lunchroom as the assassin, Oswald would have to descend from the 6th floor to the lunchroom in that timeframe. Here is what Martin has said on the subject:
"If Oswald had come down the stairs within 75 seconds after the shots, he would have been seen by Dorothy Garner, who was standing next to the stairs on the 4th floor. She heard Adams and Styles going down on the stairs and saw Baker and Truly come up. Somewhere inbetween these two events Oswald would have be passing the 4th floor. The reason Garner did not see him is simple; he didn't come down the stairs."
The reason Garner did not see him is simple; he didn't come down the stairs."
It's a logical conclusion based on the known facts. If you disagree, feel free to prove me wrong Thumb1:
-
This is most likely falling on deaf ears, but you should really try to listen and understand what somebody is actually saying instead of dismissing it outright and later making up an alternative version of what they said.
"Richard" isn't interested in what anybody else has to say -- he's regurgitating from a script.
-
...and thinks Oswald has an alibi for the moment of the assassination.
Oswald does have an alibi...he just can't give us one right now.
The reason Garner did not see him is simple; he didn't come down the stairs."
Agree. Oswald did not come down the stairs.
-
CTers/JAQers/OAKers want to muffle those who have become thorns in their sides
Talk about cowardice. I call it dictatorship:
-----------------
BONUS MAXIM
-----------------
'Defanging public discourse ultimately
places the nightstick in the hand of the
oppressor. The dictator demands a
timid populace’ ~ William J Chapman
-
"Richard" isn't interested in what anybody else has to say -- he's regurgitating from a script.
Says the 'Little Dictator'
-
So many words.
You're a complete waste of time and oxygen. You are so damned arrogant that you actually think that your opinion is always the right one and, as a consequence, you don't need to pay any attention to what others say. You can always make up stuff as you go, right?
Btw, what is this "so many words" crap anyway? I've seen you use it time after time. Is it to signal that your brain has such a limited capacity that it can only process a certain (small) number of words in one go?
If you don't believe Oswald could have escaped the 6th floor unnoticed (as you have stated repeatedly as though a fact) then he obviously could not be the assassin.
Again, when did I ever claim that, "as though a fact"? This is what you get when you are so convinced of your own belief that you simply don't pay attention to what others actually say. Obviously, this lie is just another distraction to draw attention away from the fact that you can not explain how he could have done it. It's the strategy of a loser.
You claimed that Oswald could have gone down the stairs unnoticed. I've asked you for the evidence for that claim a thousand times by now. Where is? And if you haven't got it, just be honest for once and admit it, instead of desperately trying to turn the argument around.
Why is it so difficult for you to have the courage of your convictions instead of playing these games where you claim something is a fact but then deny the implications of your own claim? It is embarrassing.
You mean the courage of my convictions as you (utterly mistaken and dishonestly) feel they should be. The only one making claims is you. According to you Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 on 11/22/63 (claim one), he was in the sn as the shooter who killed Kennedy (claim 2) and he managed to get downstairs unnoticed (claim 3). The implications of those claims are that you need to present evidence for them and, oh what a surprise, you haven't got any. So, deflection is the game. It's pathethic.
So angry. Why start out every post with a rant and commentary with whomever you engaging? That's a lot of emotion to expend about a topic that you purport not to care about and have no agenda.
-
The reason Garner did not see him is simple; he didn't come down the stairs."
It's a logical conclusion based on the known facts. If you disagree, feel free to prove me wrong Thumb1:
Caught out in another logical contradiction and lie. You have claimed over and over that Oswald couldn't go down the stairs from the 6th floor to the lunchroom unnoticed. You stated that as a fact. If Oswald couldn't go down the stairs unnoticed from the 6th floor as you claim (and he wasn't noticed doing so) and he obviously didn't take the elevator since it was still on the upper floors when Baker and Truly headed from the 1st to 2nd floor, then how could Oswald reach the lunchroom from the 6th floor? He couldn't get there in your scenario. There is no way to do so when you rule out using the stairs and the elevator was not used. That is the position that you have taken. You are a CTer by your own words. Why not just admit it? There are plenty of kooks who acknowledge they are CTers. Why not come out of the closet and join them? Have some courage for once. You are here every waking moment nitpicking the evidence against Oswald while entertaining every baseless theory that could possibly lend itself to his innocence. You are not only a CTer but a zealot for the cause. Your unwillingness to admit that is a source of great humor.
"If Oswald had come down the stairs within 75 seconds after the shots, he would have been seen by Dorothy Garner, who was standing next to the stairs on the 4th floor.
She heard Adams and Styles going down on the stairs and saw Baker and Truly come up. Somewhere inbetween these two events Oswald would have be passing the 4th floor. The reason Garner did not see him is simple; he didn't come down the stairs."
"Except that I have never claimed he wasn't on the 6th floor nor that he couldn't reach the lunchroom unnoticed. That's just another one of your strawman."
-
So angry. Why start out every post with a rant and commentary with whomever you engaging? That's a lot of emotion to expend about a topic that you purport not to care about and have no agenda.
Classic Richard Smith. Point out his lies and he will tell you that you are angry. Anything to stay clear of having to provide a plausible answer to the question how he thinks Oswald managed to get passed Dorothy Garner unnoticed. Now, there's a surprise.... :D
As I said before, Richard is a complete waste of time and oxygen.
-
Caught out in another logical contradiction and lie. You have claimed over and over that Oswald couldn't go down the stairs from the 6th floor to the lunchroom unnoticed. You stated that as a fact. If Oswald couldn't go down the stairs unnoticed from the 6th floor as you claim (and he wasn't noticed doing so) and he obviously didn't take the elevator since it was still on the upper floors when Baker and Truly headed from the 1st to 2nd floor, then how could Oswald reach the lunchroom from the 6th floor? He couldn't get there in your scenario. There is no way to do so when you rule out using the stairs and the elevator was not used. That is the position that you have taken. You are a CTer by your own words. Why not just admit it? There are plenty of kooks who acknowledge they are CTers. Why not come out of the closet and join them? Have some courage for once. You are here every waking moment nitpicking the evidence against Oswald while entertaining every baseless theory that could possibly lend itself to his innocence. You are not only a CTer but a zealot for the cause. Your unwillingness to admit that is a source of great humor.
"If Oswald had come down the stairs within 75 seconds after the shots, he would have been seen by Dorothy Garner, who was standing next to the stairs on the 4th floor.
She heard Adams and Styles going down on the stairs and saw Baker and Truly come up. Somewhere inbetween these two events Oswald would have be passing the 4th floor. The reason Garner did not see him is simple; he didn't come down the stairs."
"Except that I have never claimed he wasn't on the 6th floor nor that he couldn't reach the lunchroom unnoticed. That's just another one of your strawman."
It's not my problem that you don't understand the difference between a hypothesis and a factual claim.
If Oswald couldn't go down the stairs unnoticed from the 6th floor as you claim (and he wasn't noticed doing so) and he obviously didn't take the elevator since it was still on the upper floors when Baker and Truly headed from the 1st to 2nd floor, then how could Oswald reach the lunchroom from the 6th floor? He couldn't get there in your scenario.
Indeed. And as you claim he was up on the 6th floor (for which you also have no evidence) I have asked you a thousand times to explain how Oswald managed to go down the stairs without Dorothy Garner seeing him.
There is no way to do so when you rule out using the stairs and the elevator was not used. That is the position that you have taken. You are a CTer by your own words. Why not just admit it?
BS. Taking that position is simply accepting an obvious reality. It only makes me a CT in the eyes of a fanatical LN.
You are here every waking moment nitpicking the evidence against Oswald while entertaining every baseless theory that could possibly lend itself to his innocence
What's wrong with scrutinizing the evidence? The only person who could have a problem with that is somebody who simply doesn't have enough confidence in the evidence he is defending.
That same person would also call every theory that does not match his own opinion baseless. It's also the same person who is never able to provide conclusive evidence for his claims nor can he ever show why a theory is baseless.
Why not simply discussing the evidence instead of constantly whining about others?
-
It's not my problem that you don't understand the difference between a hypothesis and a factual claim.
If Oswald couldn't go down the stairs unnoticed from the 6th floor as you claim (and he wasn't noticed doing so) and he obviously didn't take the elevator since it was still on the upper floors when Baker and Truly headed from the 1st to 2nd floor, then how could Oswald reach the lunchroom from the 6th floor? He couldn't get there in your scenario.
Indeed. And as you claim he was up on the 6th floor (for which you also have no evidence) I have asked you a thousand times to explain how Oswald managed to go down the stairs without Dorothy Garner seeing him.
There is no way to do so when you rule out using the stairs and the elevator was not used. That is the position that you have taken. You are a CTer by your own words. Why not just admit it?
BS. Taking that position is simply accepting an obvious reality. It only makes me a CT in the eyes of a fanatical LN.
You are here every waking moment nitpicking the evidence against Oswald while entertaining every baseless theory that could possibly lend itself to his innocence
What's wrong with scrutinizing the evidence? The only person who could have a problem with that is somebody who simply doesn't have enough confidence in the evidence he is defending.
That same person would also call every theory that does not match his own opinion baseless. It's also the same person who is never able to provide conclusive evidence for his claims nor can he ever show why a theory is baseless.
Why not simply discussing the evidence instead of constantly whining about others?
So much mumbo jumbo and deflection. Dancing around like a circus monkey. This is a straightforward issue. You claimed as a fact that Oswald couldn't have come down the stairs from the 6th floor to the lunchroom unnoticed. If Oswald couldn't have reached the lunchroom from the 6th floor after the assassination via the stairs, that precludes him from being the assassin. The shots were fired from the 6th floor. He couldn't have used the elevators since they were still on the upper floors. Baker and Truly had to go up the stairs because the elevators were on the upper floors. There is no other option for Oswald to have descended from the 6th floor to the lunchroom other than the stairs or elevator. Neither of which he could have used if you are correct. As a result, the only possible implication to be drawn from your claim is that you believe Oswald could not have been the assassin. That makes you a CTer.
-
So much mumbo jumbo and deflection. Dancing around like a circus monkey. This is a straightforward issue. You claimed as a fact that Oswald couldn't have come down the stairs from the 6th floor to the lunchroom unnoticed. If Oswald couldn't have reached the lunchroom from the 6th floor after the assassination via the stairs, that precludes him from being the assassin. The shots were fired from the 6th floor. He couldn't have used the elevators since they were still on the upper floors. Baker and Truly had to go up the stairs because the elevators were on the upper floors. There is no other option for Oswald to have descended from the 6th floor to the lunchroom other than the stairs or elevator. Neither of which he could have used if you are correct. As a result, the only possible implication to be drawn from your claim is that you believe Oswald could not have been the assassin. That makes you a CTer.
No. It makes me a realist reaching a logical conclusion based on known facts.
But I'll make you a deal.....Forget proving that Oswald was on the 6th floor and even that he fired the shots at Kennedy. Just explain how he would have gone down the stairs (the only option, as you say) without being noticed by anybody and Dorothy Garner in particular. When you do that, I'll gladly accept that Oswald could indeed have been on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting. No CTer would ever do that. So, give it your best shot.... come on then.. prove my hypothesis wrong and convince me!
Now why do I expect another rant about everything except the answer to my question?
-
This scenario seems just as likely as anything these ding-dongs have come up with, to date.
(https://i.postimg.cc/DwKh4SjS/282-SPIDEY-CEILING.png)
Bill Chapman
-
Caught out in another logical contradiction and lie. You have claimed over and over that Oswald couldn't go down the stairs from the 6th floor to the lunchroom unnoticed. You stated that as a fact. If Oswald couldn't go down the stairs unnoticed from the 6th floor as you claim (and he wasn't noticed doing so) and he obviously didn't take the elevator since it was still on the upper floors when Baker and Truly headed from the 1st to 2nd floor, then how could Oswald reach the lunchroom from the 6th floor? He couldn't get there in your scenario. There is no way to do so when you rule out using the stairs and the elevator was not used. That is the position that you have taken. You are a CTer by your own words.
Since when does the postulation of Oswald not doing it equate to a "conspiracy theory"?
When you are Strawman "Smith", of course!
-
What's wrong with scrutinizing the evidence? The only person who could have a problem with that is somebody who simply doesn't have enough confidence in the evidence he is defending.
Exactly right. The only person who would object to the "nitpicking" of evidence is somebody with lousy evidence and an agenda.
-
How to double the average intelligence of the forum posts in one easy step.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/chapman-ignored.png)
-
How to double the average intelligence of the forum posts in one easy step.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/chapman-ignored.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/SsJH6Bvj/283-GORILLA-GAL.png)
Bill Chapman
-
No. It makes me a realist reaching a logical conclusion based on known facts.
But I'll make you a deal.....Forget proving that Oswald was on the 6th floor and even that he fired the shots at Kennedy. Just explain how he would have gone down the stairs (the only option, as you say) without being noticed by anybody and Dorothy Garner in particular. When you do that, I'll gladly accept that Oswald could indeed have been on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting. No CTer would ever do that. So, give it your best shot.... come on then.. prove my hypothesis wrong and convince me!
Now why do I expect another rant about everything except the answer to my question?
I've already explained this multiple times. It is impossible to reconstruct the movements of Oswald and your witnesses to the level of precision that you insist is accurate. It simply can't be done. Even if you repeat it over and over and insist it is a fact. Human beings do not recall their movements down to the second with that kind of precision. You have grafted on to their testimony a narrative that suits your desired narrative (i.e. that Oswald is innocent) based upon unknowable information. Any small variation allows Oswald to reach the lunchroom unnoticed. Which he did as we know happened from the evidence left behind.
Now answer my question. How can you not be a CTer if you think it is a fact, based upon the testimony you cite, that Oswald could not have come down the stairs from the 6th floor to the lunchroom? What alternative option does that leave for him to reach the lunchroom if he didn't use the stairs or elevator? The implication is clear if your facts are true as you have insisted. He couldn't have reached the lunchroom and, thus, could not have been the assassin. So explain to us how you are not a CTer if you think it is a proven fact that Oswald couldn't reach the lunchroom from the 6th floor.
-
I've already explained this multiple times. It is impossible to reconstruct the movements of Oswald and your witnesses to the level of precision that you insist is accurate. It simply can't be done. Even if you repeat it over and over and insist it is a fact. Human beings do not recall their movements down to the second with that kind of precision. You have grafted on to their testimony a narrative that suits your desired narrative (i.e. that Oswald is innocent) based upon unknowable information. Any small variation allows Oswald to reach the lunchroom unnoticed. Which he did as we know happened from the evidence left behind.
Now answer my question. How can you not be a CTer if you think it is a fact, based upon the testimony you cite, that Oswald could not have come down the stairs from the 6th floor to the lunchroom? What alternative option does that leave for him to reach the lunchroom if he didn't use the stairs or elevator? The implication is clear if your facts are true as you have insisted. He couldn't have reached the lunchroom and, thus, could not have been the assassin. So explain to us how you are not a CTer if you think it is a proven fact that Oswald couldn't reach the lunchroom from the 6th floor.
So, you can't explain how Oswald could have gone down the stairs unnoticed nor can you show the evidence you now claim there is for him managing to do so. Got it!
As to this CT crap you keep on spouting. It's a waste of time. Nobody cares and I certainly don't care if you think I am a CT or not. It's just something you want to use to deflect the conversation away from the simple fact that you haven't got a shred of evidence for any of many questionable claims you have made and are still making.
You want us to believe that Oswald came down the stairs unnoticed, but when asked to explain how he could have done that, you become vague and hide, as the coward you are, behind unreliable human recollections. The bottom line is simple; you simply can not explain how Oswald could have managed to get down the stairs without being noticed and your claim there is evidence that proves it is simply a lie.
All you have is a rifle (which you think belongs to Oswald) and three shells. Everything else is a product of your imagination. You can not produce proof for Oswald being on the 6th floor at 12:30, for him firing the shots and for him coming down the stairs unnoticed, simply because it doesn't exist. One doesn't have to be a CT to understand this. Just having a functional brain and a sense for realism will do.
-
So, you can't explain how Oswald could have gone down the stairs unnoticed nor can you show the evidence you now claim there is for him managing to do so. Got it!
“Richard” just knows that it happened because that’s what happened. LOL.
-
Exactly right. The only person who would object to the "nitpicking" of evidence is somebody with lousy evidence and an agenda.
Yes, only a person who knows in his heart that he's wrong, but lacks the guts to face the truth, would object to someone picking through the "evidence" that was presented to us by LBJ's Special Select Blue Ribbon Committee.
A person who objects to someone pointing out a major flaw in the "evidence" and then cries when he's confronted with that flawed evidence is simply dishonest and coward , who doesn't understand the wisdom in "to thyself be true" .
-
So, you can't explain how Oswald could have gone down the stairs unnoticed nor can you show the evidence you now claim there is for him managing to do so. Got it!
As to this CT crap you keep on spouting. It's a waste of time. Nobody cares and I certainly don't care if you think I am a CT or not. It's just something you want to use to deflect the conversation away from the simple fact that you haven't got a shred of evidence for any of many questionable claims you have made and are still making.
You want us to believe that Oswald came down the stairs unnoticed, but when asked to explain how he could have done that, you become vague and hide, as the coward you are, behind unreliable human recollections. The bottom line is simple; you simply can not explain how Oswald could have managed to get down the stairs without being noticed and your claim there is evidence that proves it is simply a lie.
All you have is a rifle (which you think belongs to Oswald) and three shells. Everything else is a product of your imagination. You can not produce proof for Oswald being on the 6th floor at 12:30, for him firing the shots and for him coming down the stairs unnoticed, simply because it doesn't exist. One doesn't have to be a CT to understand this. Just having a functional brain and a sense for realism will do.
Why not answer the simple question posed and spare us the endless commentary? You have falsely claimed as a fact that Oswald could not use the stairs to reach the lunchroom unnoticed from the 6th floor. As that is the only apparent way for Oswald to have reached the lunchroom from the 6th floor, how does your conclusion not preclude Oswald from being the assassin? Yet you refuse, for some inexplicable reason, to accept the implications of your own conclusion by confirming that it is your position that Oswald was innocent and framed as part of a conspiracy.
So explain to us how you leave open any possibility of Oswald being on the 6th floor when he couldn't use the stairs or elevator to descend to the lunchroom where he was encountered by Baker. That is impossible. The only inference that can be made from your conclusion is that Oswald was not on the 6th floor. Thus, he could not be the assassin, and someone framed him for this crime. There is no way to reconcile your conclusion that Oswald couldn't use the stairs to descend to the lunchroom to account for his presence there after the assassination with Oswald still being the potential assassin on the 6th floor. Rather, this highlights your Inspector Clouseau-like approach to this case.
-
Why not answer the simple question posed and spare us the endless commentary? You have falsely claimed as a fact that Oswald could not use the stairs to reach the lunchroom unnoticed from the 6th floor.
Seeing "Richard" whining about falsely claiming things as facts has got the be the funniest thing I've seen in a long long time.
-
Yes, only a person who knows in his heart that he's wrong, but lacks the guts to face the truth, would object to someone picking through the "evidence" that was presented to us by LBJ's Special Select Blue Ribbon Committee.
A person who objects to someone pointing out a major flaw in the "evidence" and then cries when he's confronted with that flawed evidence is simply dishonest and coward , who doesn't understand the wisdom in "to thyself be true" .
What major event, without a complete audio and visual record, can't be undermined with cheap innuendo and an impossible standard of proof? It's like there was no moon landing because there wasn't an audience of witnesses already on the moon to witness it. Or somebody else wrote the Shakespeare works.
-
When people don't have very good evidence for their opinions, all they can do is complain about other people's "standard of proof".
-
Why not answer the simple question posed and spare us the endless commentary? You have falsely claimed as a fact that Oswald could not use the stairs to reach the lunchroom unnoticed from the 6th floor. As that is the only apparent way for Oswald to have reached the lunchroom from the 6th floor, how does your conclusion not preclude Oswald from being the assassin? Yet you refuse, for some inexplicable reason, to accept the implications of your own conclusion by confirming that it is your position that Oswald was innocent and framed as part of a conspiracy.
So explain to us how you leave open any possibility of Oswald being on the 6th floor when he couldn't use the stairs or elevator to descend to the lunchroom where he was encountered by Baker. That is impossible. The only inference that can be made from your conclusion is that Oswald was not on the 6th floor. Thus, he could not be the assassin, and someone framed him for this crime. There is no way to reconcile your conclusion that Oswald couldn't use the stairs to descend to the lunchroom to account for his presence there after the assassination with Oswald still being the potential assassin on the 6th floor. Rather, this highlights your Inspector Clouseau-like approach to this case.
You have falsely claimed as a fact that Oswald could not use the stairs to reach the lunchroom unnoticed from the 6th floor.
There's nothing false about it, nor have I ever claimed any of it as a fact. I have given you countless opportunities to prove that it is false and you have completely failed to do so. That speaks for itself.
-
What major event, without a complete audio and visual record, can't be undermined with cheap innuendo and an impossible standard of proof? It's like there was no moon landing because there wasn't an audience of witnesses already on the moon to witness it. Or somebody else wrote the Shakespeare works.
It is a fact that Lee Oswald was in the 1st Floor lunchroom at 12:27. Therefore, it's highly unlikely ( Impossible) that he could have been on the sixth floor and shooting that carcano out of the window.
I'm sorry that this fact renders your theories impossible.....
-
It is a fact that Lee Oswald was in the 1st Floor lunchroom at 12:27. Therefore, it's highly unlikely ( Impossible) that he could have been on the sixth floor and shooting that carcano out of the window.
I'm sorry that this fact renders your theories impossible.....
Could you cite where anyone said they went by the domino room at 12:27? Jarman, I think, said something like "It was 12:25 or 12:28". Is that your source?
The people recording Oswald's claims said he was in the domino room when either two man walked through, or the two men sat down and had lunch there. Jarman and Norman, and I believe Oswald would have known this, would have to go through the domino room to get to where they routinely stored their lunches. Neither men saw Oswald while eating their lunch, so likely Oswald had no idea that the two men had already eaten.
When Jarman and Norman showed up under Oswald's open window on the sixth floor, Oswald wrongly assumed they had just come from the domino room having just gotten and eaten their lunches. Just another lie among the dozens of lies Oswald told officials.
-
Could you cite where anyone said they went by the domino room at 12:27? Jarman, I think, said something like "It was 12:25 or 12:28". Is that your source?
The people recording Oswald's claims said he was in the domino room when either two man walked through, or the two men sat down and had lunch there. Jarman and Norman, and I believe Oswald would have known this, would have to go through the domino room to get to where they routinely stored their lunches. Neither men saw Oswald while eating their lunch, so likely Oswald had no idea that the two men had already eaten.
When Jarman and Norman showed up under Oswald's open window on the sixth floor, Oswald wrongly assumed they had just come from the domino room having just gotten and eaten their lunches. Just another lie among the dozens of lies Oswald told officials.
The people recording Oswald's claims said
That's the most important part. Those people were not familiar with the lay out of the TSBD and may very well have misinterpreted or misremembered what Oswald actually said.
When Jarman and Norman showed up under Oswald's open window on the sixth floor, Oswald wrongly assumed they had just come from the domino room having just gotten and eaten their lunches. Just another lie among the dozens of lies Oswald told officials.
Cool story and a nice bit of speculation for which there isn't a shred of evidence.
-
Could you cite where anyone said they went by the domino room at 12:27? Jarman, I think, said something like "It was 12:25 or 12:28". Is that your source?
The people recording Oswald's claims said he was in the domino room when either two man walked through, or the two men sat down and had lunch there. Jarman and Norman, and I believe Oswald would have known this, would have to go through the domino room to get to where they routinely stored their lunches. Neither men saw Oswald while eating their lunch, so likely Oswald had no idea that the two men had already eaten.
When Jarman and Norman showed up under Oswald's open window on the sixth floor, Oswald wrongly assumed they had just come from the domino room having just gotten and eaten their lunches. Just another lie among the dozens of lies Oswald told officials.
I think at this point, I should heed my own advice, and stop arguing with an ignoramus.......But ....
Jarman, I think, said something like "It was 12:25 or 12:28". Is that your source?
Question;.... Does 12:27 fall between 12:25 - 12:28 ? I can't give you the precise time that Lee Oswald saw Jarman and Norman walk by the 1st floor lunchroom because they never gave an exact time. But we don't need a precise time... Lee said that he saw them walk by and Jarman said that they arrived on the 5th floor at 12:28..... It doesn't require a degree in advanced mathematics to understand that Lee couldn't have been on the 6th floor and firing that carcano at 12:30.
The people recording Oswald's claims said he was in the domino room when either two man walked through, or the two men sat down and had lunch there. Jarman and Norman, and I believe Oswald would have known this, would have to go through the domino room to get to where they routinely stored their lunches. Neither men saw Oswald while eating their lunch, so likely Oswald had no idea that the two men had already eaten.
Perhaps you should review the story..... There were only three men at the interrogation at 3:15 ...They were Fritz, Hosty, and Bookhout.... Thomas Kelly's first interrogation of Lee Oswald occurred on Sunday morning just prior to the lynching of Lee Oswald. So your citing of Kelly is irrelevant Since Lee told Fritz, Hosty, and
Bookhout during that initial interrogation that he was in the first floor lunchroom when Junior and Shorty walked by. I can't understand why you want to cite a person who wasn't even there. Citing Thomas Kelly merely reveals your desperation.
-
Could you cite where anyone said they went by the domino room at 12:27? Jarman, I think, said something like "It was 12:25 or 12:28". Is that your source?
The people recording Oswald's claims said he was in the domino room when either two man walked through, or the two men sat down and had lunch there. Jarman and Norman, and I believe Oswald would have known this, would have to go through the domino room to get to where they routinely stored their lunches. Neither men saw Oswald while eating their lunch, so likely Oswald had no idea that the two men had already eaten.
When Jarman and Norman showed up under Oswald's open window on the sixth floor, Oswald wrongly assumed they had just come from the domino room having just gotten and eaten their lunches. Just another lie among the dozens of lies Oswald told officials.
Jarman and Norman, and I believe Oswald would have known this, would have to go through the domino room to get to where they routinely stored their lunches. Neither men saw Oswald while eating their lunch,
Are you saying that Jarman and Norman walked through the lunchroom to get their lunch sacks while Lee was eating his lunch? And they sat down and ate lunch with Lee Oswald.... I don't know that they would have been allowed to sit and eat with Lee because segregation was still strongly enforced in Dallas, and the TSBD.
They might have put their jobs in jeopardy ....... Roy Truly most certainly would not have allowed them to eat with Lee Oswald.
-
Jarman and Norman, and I believe Oswald would have known this, would have to go through the domino room to get to where they routinely stored their lunches. Neither men saw Oswald while eating their lunch,
Are you saying that Jarman and Norman walked through the lunchroom to get their lunch sacks while Lee was eating his lunch? And they sat down and ate lunch with Lee Oswald.... I don't know that they would have been allowed to sit and eat with Lee because segregation was still strongly enforced in Dallas, and the TSBD.
They might have put their jobs in jeopardy ....... Roy Truly most certainly would not have allowed them to eat with Lee Oswald.
Wow! I thought it worth while to preserve the post above before it could be erased. ::)
-
Wow! I thought it worth while to preserve the post above before it could be erased. ::)
Erased??.... Are you aware that Roy Truly referred to the Negro employees as his n---ers.
-
How can you not be a CTer if you think it is a fact, based upon the testimony you cite, that Oswald could not have come down the stairs from the 6th floor to the lunchroom? What alternative option does that leave for him to reach the lunchroom if he didn't use the stairs or elevator? The implication is clear if your facts are true as you have insisted. He couldn't have reached the lunchroom and, thus, could not have been the assassin. So explain to us how you are not a CTer if you think it is a proven fact that Oswald couldn't reach the lunchroom from the 6th floor.
What a stupid question.
You state "CTer" like it's some sort of cult.
Get it straight...you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to disbelieve, criticize, or be skeptical of some other theory.
Martin Weidmann [I've noticed] has avoided advancing theoretical doctrine as much as possible.
That LHO was ever on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting is actually based on nothing but conjecture and speculation.
The Warren dogma stipulates that Oswald did it because...it was his rifle.
:-\ That's it. That's all they really have.
All the Report defenders can seem to do is tweak a supposition here and scooch in a premise there that proves absolutely nothing.
-
What a stupid question.
You state "CTer" like it's some sort of cult.
Get it straight...you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to disbelieve, criticize, or be skeptical of some other theory.
Martin Weidmann [I've noticed] has avoided advancing theoretical doctrine as much as possible.
That LHO was ever on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting is actually based on nothing but conjecture and speculation.
The Warren dogma stipulates that Oswald did it because...it was his rifle.
:-\ That's it. That's all they really have.
All the Report defenders can seem to do is tweak a supposition here and scooch in a premise there that proves absolutely nothing.
The Warren dogma stipulates that Oswald did it because...it was his rifle. :-\ That's it. That's all they really have.
Yes, And I believe he ordered it from Kleins ( to be used as a throw down gun at Walker's ) it was in his possession, but I doubt that he bought the money order to be sent to Kleins....Therefore, technically it was NOT his rifle. But the paper trail led to Lee Oswald.... And that's the way he had planned.... He left the carcano near Walker's house after he fired a bullet through the window in hope that police dogs would find the rifle and it would be traced to him after he was in Cuba. That would have lent credibility to the story that he had tried to shoot one of Castro's most vocal foes.
BUT .... The carcano was NOT fired on 11/22/63 ..... It was simply a stage prop to fool the investigators into believing that he had fired shots at JFK. An honest investigation would have revealed that the rifle was not fired that day..... But Hoover had control.
-
What a stupid question.
You state "CTer" like it's some sort of cult.
Get it straight...you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to disbelieve, criticize, or be skeptical of some other theory.
Martin Weidmann [I've noticed] has avoided advancing theoretical doctrine as much as possible.
That LHO was ever on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting is actually based on nothing but conjecture and speculation.
The Warren dogma stipulates that Oswald did it because...it was his rifle.
:-\ That's it. That's all they really have.
All the Report defenders can seem to do is tweak a supposition here and scooch in a premise there that proves absolutely nothing.
Get it straight...you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to disbelieve, criticize, or be skeptical of some other theory.
Spot on. But it's part of Richard's dishonest game to try and put labels on people so he has something to attack. It's the same thing with the strawman arguments he always comes up with. He needs those so he has something to ridicule.
The simple fact is that, despite Richard's claims to the contrary, there simply isn't any conclusive evidence to support most, if not all, of his claims. That's why he will never answer questions, never explain anything, completely ignore the evidence and arguments presented by others and constantly purposely misrepresent what others are supposed to have said.
It's the strategy of a loser with an agenda. Richard's behavior is the best evidence for just how weak the case against Oswald really is.
-
Get it straight...you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to disbelieve, criticize, or be skeptical of some other theory.
Spot on. But it's part of Richard's dishonest game to try and put labels on people so he has something to attack. It's the same thing with the strawman arguments he always comes up with. He needs those so he has something to ridicule.
The simple fact is that, despite Richard's claims to the contrary, there simply isn't any conclusive evidence to support most, if not all, of his claims. That's why he will never answer questions, never explain anything, completely ignore the evidence and arguments presented by others and constantly purposely misrepresent what others are supposed to have said.
It's the strategy of a loser with an agenda. Richard's behavior is the best evidence for just how weak the case against Oswald really is.
Richard's behavior is the best evidence for just how weak the case against Oswald really is. humb1:
-
What a stupid question.
You state "CTer" like it's some sort of cult.
Get it straight...you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to disbelieve, criticize, or be skeptical of some other theory.
Martin Weidmann [I've noticed] has avoided advancing theoretical doctrine as much as possible.
That LHO was ever on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting is actually based on nothing but conjecture and speculation.
The Warren dogma stipulates that Oswald did it because...it was his rifle.
:-\ That's it. That's all they really have.
All the Report defenders can seem to do is tweak a supposition here and scooch in a premise there that proves absolutely nothing.
I can't decipher what you are babbling about here. This was a simple point that was being made. If Oswald did not commit this crime, then there must have been a conspiracy to frame him to explain the evidence against him. In addition, Martin refuses to even admit that he is a CTer. He is apparently ashamed to be linked to folks such as yourself despite agreeing with you. So take it up with him.
-
Get it straight...you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to disbelieve, criticize, or be skeptical of some other theory.
Spot on. But it's part of Richard's dishonest game to try and put labels on people so he has something to attack. It's the same thing with the strawman arguments he always comes up with. He needs those so he has something to ridicule.
The simple fact is that, despite Richard's claims to the contrary, there simply isn't any conclusive evidence to support most, if not all, of his claims. That's why he will never answer questions, never explain anything, completely ignore the evidence and arguments presented by others and constantly purposely misrepresent what others are supposed to have said.
It's the strategy of a loser with an agenda. Richard's behavior is the best evidence for just how weak the case against Oswald really is.
So much commentary and personal insults but again no answer. Could Oswald have reached the 2nd floor lunchroom after the assassination from the 6th floor if he did not use the stairs (which you claim is a demonstrable fact)? That is a straightforward yes or no question that does not require paragraph after paragraph of commentary about me.
-
So much commentary and personal insults but again no answer. Could Oswald have reached the 2nd floor lunchroom after the assassination from the 6th floor if he did not use the stairs (which you claim is a demonstrable fact)? That is a straightforward yes or no question that does not require paragraph after paragraph of commentary about me.
No. Because here's why. If he was supposedly up there, he fired the last shot. He wiped down the boxes enough so only a partial [dubious] palm print was found on one of the boxes, after supposedly moving around several to build the nest. He's going to make an elaborate deal about hiding the gun so he can try to get away. Here's the so-called madman who supposedly had his wife take photos of him holding up the pistol, rifle and Commie newspapers, chest strutting outward. This guy wants to make a big big statement here.
Yet, when he actually does the shooting he wants to hide the gun but forgets to take the shells. Why bother, you know? But I digress. So he wipes down the gun well enough so that nothing is found on the gun. The gun has as sight on it that's not even aligned properly and he had no time to test fire before doing the deed.
Then he puts it between the boxes. Then he goes down and as part of his grand plan to escape undetected, instead of scooting right out the front door, he instead takes a detour to refresh himself by buying himself an ice cold Coca Cola.
If you and many others want to continue to believe that that's what happened that day, wonderful. But the above scenario makes absolutely no sense and goes against all natural inclination of how it was said it went down.
So again you want the simple answer, here it is. No.
-
I can't decipher what you are babbling about here. This was a simple point that was being made. If Oswald did not commit this crime, then there must have been a conspiracy to frame him to explain the evidence against him. In addition, Martin refuses to even admit that he is a CTer. He is apparently ashamed to be linked to folks such as yourself despite agreeing with you. So take it up with him.
I didn't think you would be dumb enough to even try to reply, but it seems I was wrong.
So much commentary and personal insults but again no answer. Could Oswald have reached the 2nd floor lunchroom after the assassination from the 6th floor if he did not use the stairs (which you claim is a demonstrable fact)? That is a straightforward yes or no question that does not require paragraph after paragraph of commentary about me.
You're lying again. I have never claimed that it is a demonstrable fact that Oswald did not use the stairs.
I don't know if Oswald had any other way of getting from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor lunchroom nor do I even know if he was on the 6th floor at all. The total absence of any credible evidence leaves the possibility wide open that he wasn't and if he wasn't nobody would have seen him coming down the stairs either.
And while we're on the subject of no answers; where is the evidence for your claim that Oswald was on the 6th floor, that he was the shooter and that he managed to go down the stairs unnoticed?
-
No. Because here's why. If he was supposedly up there, he fired the last shot. He wiped down the boxes enough so only a partial [dubious] palm print was found on one of the boxes, after supposedly moving around several to build the nest. He's going to make an elaborate deal about hiding the gun so he can try to get away. Here's the so-called madman who supposedly had his wife take photos of him holding up the pistol, rifle and Commie newspapers, chest strutting outward. This guy wants to make a big big statement here.
Yet, when he actually does the shooting he wants to hide the gun but forgets to take the shells. Why bother, you know? But I digress. So he wipes down the gun well enough so that nothing is found on the gun. The gun has as sight on it that's not even aligned properly and he had no time to test fire before doing the deed.
Then he puts it between the boxes. Then he goes down and as part of his grand plan to escape undetected, instead of scooting right out the front door, he instead takes a detour to refresh himself by buying himself an ice cold Coca Cola.
If you and many others want to continue to believe that that's what happened that day, wonderful. But the above scenario makes absolutely no sense and goes against all natural inclination of how it was said it went down.
So again you want the simple answer, here it is. No.
Thanks Michael. Hopefully you have set a precedent that others can follow by sticking to the issue and not engaging in a lot of personal commentary. It's unknowable in my opinion as to whether Oswald wiped down the rifle and boxes. Maybe he did, but I agree with you that the only apparent way that he could get from the 6th floor after the assassination to the 2nd floor lunchroom in time for the Baker encounter was to use the stairs. There were only two apparent ways to descend from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor in the building. By the stairs or elevator. Martin believes his analysis of the evidence precludes the use of the stairs. The elevators were still on the upper floors when Baker/Truly ascended the stairs from the 1st to 2nd floor. There is no way that Oswald could have taken the elevator in that scenario to reach the 2nd floor lunchroom before Baker. Yet Martin has so far denied that his conclusion that Oswald did not use the stairs precludes him being the assassin. How he could get from the 6th floor to 2nd floor in this scenario is left unexplained. A classic example of how contrarians can nitpick the evidence but refuse to accept the logical implication of their claim having validity.
-
I didn't think you would be dumb enough to even try to reply, but it seems I was wrong.
You're lying again. I have never claimed that it is a demonstrable fact that Oswald did not use the stairs.
I don't know if Oswald had any other way of getting from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor lunchroom nor do I even know if he was on the 6th floor at all. The total absence of any credible evidence leaves the possibility wide open that he wasn't and if he wasn't there nobody would have seen him coming down the stairs either.
And while we're on the subject of no answers; where is the evidence for your claim that Oswald was on the 6th floor, that he was the shooter and that he managed to go down the stairs unnoticed?
So now you think it is possible for Oswald to have used the stairs unnoticed to reach the lunchroom? After going on and on to claim this was impossible based on the witness testimony ("he didn't come down the stairs"). Wow. Take it up with the guy who wrote this under your name:
"If Oswald had come down the stairs within 75 seconds after the shots, he would have been seen by Dorothy Garner, who was standing next to the stairs on the 4th floor.
She heard Adams and Styles going down on the stairs and saw Baker and Truly come up. Somewhere inbetween these two events Oswald would have be passing the 4th floor. The reason Garner did not see him is simple; he didn't come down the stairs."
-
Thanks Michael. Hopefully you have set a precedent that others can follow by sticking to the issue and not engaging in a lot of personal commentary. It's unknowable in my opinion as to whether Oswald wiped down the rifle and boxes. Maybe he did, but I agree with you that the only apparent way that he could get from the 6th floor after the assassination to the 2nd floor lunchroom in time for the Baker encounter was to use the stairs. There were only two apparent ways to descend from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor in the building. By the stairs or elevator. Martin believes his analysis of the evidence precludes the use of the stairs. The elevators were still on the upper floors when Baker/Truly ascended the stairs from the 1st to 2nd floor. There is no way that Oswald could have taken the elevator in that scenario to reach the 2nd floor lunchroom before Baker. Yet Martin has so far denied that his conclusion that Oswald did not use the stairs precludes him being the assassin. How he could get from the 6th floor to 2nd floor in this scenario is left unexplained. A classic example of how contrarians can nitpick the evidence but refuse to accept the logical implication of their claim having validity.
There is no way that Oswald could have taken the elevator in that scenario to reach the 2nd floor lunchroom before Baker. Yet Martin has so far denied that his conclusion that Oswald did not use the stairs precludes him being the assassin. How he could get from the 6th floor to 2nd floor in this scenario is left unexplained.
Another day and again another strawman.
And not a trace of evidence for Richard's claim that Oswald was on the 6th floor and came down the stairs to the 2nd floor unnoticed. I don't think Oswald, or anybody else, could have come down the stairs unnoticed, directly after the shots, but, according to Richard, Oswald somehow managed to do exactly that. Too bad that Richard just can't explain how he managed to do that.....
-
I don't know if Oswald had any other way of getting from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor lunchroom nor do I even know if he was on the 6th floor at all. The total absence of any credible evidence leaves the possibility wide open that he wasn't and if he wasn't nobody would have seen him coming down the stairs either.
This is not rocket science. There were only two ways to descend from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor - stairs or elevator. You have cited witness testimony to conclude that Oswald could not have descended the stairs unnoticed. The facts and circumstances also eliminate the elevators. Thus, there is no conceivable way that Oswald could have reached the 2nd floor if he had been the assassin under your analysis. I'm not even debating whether you are correct or not. Just asking you to confirm that under your own analysis the only possible conclusion that can be drawn is that Oswald could not have been the assassin. Why is that so hard? You refuse to accept your own conclusion. You are struggling against yourself not me.
-
There is no way that Oswald could have taken the elevator in that scenario to reach the 2nd floor lunchroom before Baker. Yet Martin has so far denied that his conclusion that Oswald did not use the stairs precludes him being the assassin. How he could get from the 6th floor to 2nd floor in this scenario is left unexplained.
Another day and again another strawman.
And not a trace of evidence for Richard's claim that Oswald was on the 6th floor and came down the stairs to the 2nd floor unnoticed. I don't think Oswald, or anybody else, could have come down the stairs unnoticed, directly after the shots, but, according to Richard, Oswald somehow managed to do exactly that. Too bad that Richard just can't explain how he managed to do that.....
So now you are back to concluding that Oswald couldn't have come down the stairs contradicting your very last post. Unreal.
-
So now you think it is possible for Oswald to have used the stairs unnoticed to reach the lunchroom? After going on and on to claim this was impossible based on the witness testimony ("he didn't come down the stairs"). Wow. Take it up with the guy who wrote this under your name:
"If Oswald had come down the stairs within 75 seconds after the shots, he would have been seen by Dorothy Garner, who was standing next to the stairs on the 4th floor.
She heard Adams and Styles going down on the stairs and saw Baker and Truly come up. Somewhere inbetween these two events Oswald would have be passing the 4th floor. The reason Garner did not see him is simple; he didn't come down the stairs."
Mr. Misrepresentation strikes again.
So now you think it is possible for Oswald to have used the stairs unnoticed to reach the lunchroom?
Where exactly did I say that?
You can twist and turn all you want, but you are the one who claimed that Oswald came down the stairs unnoticed. I don't think that's possible, but if you can explain how he managed to do that, I might change my mind.
Ever since I asked you for this explanation for the first time, you've been doing a song and dance routine and tried every form of deflection. Why is that?
-
So now you are back to concluding that Oswald couldn't have come down the stairs contradicting your very last post. Unreal.
I've never changed my position once. You just keep on misrepresenting it. That's all.
-
This is not rocket science. There were only two ways to descend from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor - stairs or elevator. You have cited witness testimony to conclude that Oswald could not have descended the stairs unnoticed. The facts and circumstances also eliminate the elevators. Thus, there is no conceivable way that Oswald could have reached the 2nd floor if he had been the assassin under your analysis. I'm not even debating whether you are correct or not. Just asking you to confirm that under your own analysis the only possible conclusion that can be drawn is that Oswald could not have been the assassin. Why is that so hard? You refuse to accept your own conclusion. You are struggling against yourself not me.
there is no conceivable way that Oswald could have reached the 2nd floor if he had been the assassin under your analysis.
Simple question; do you agree with this analysis?
I'm not even debating whether you are correct or not
Of course you are not and it's pretty obvious why. You haven't got the guts to go there.
Just asking you to confirm that under your own analysis the only possible conclusion that can be drawn is that Oswald could not have been the assassin.
I am not in the habit of repeating myself time after time just because some clown keeps asking the same question over and over again. The implications of my observation are clear. If Oswald could not go down the stairs unnoticed, within roughly 75 seconds after the shots, and nobody did in fact see him, than it is unlikely he was even on the 6th floor. So, in order to establish if he was indeed on the 6th floor it needs to be explained how he could have managed to come down the stairs. Despite claiming that there was evidence for it, you have still not been able to provide a plausible explanation which, by implication, also means that you can't prove that he was on the 6th floor either.
You can't have the one without the other, at least not where Oswald is concerned. I've asked you time after time for a plausible explanation and you have not presented one. That says enough.
-
I think at this point, I should heed my own advice, and stop arguing with an ignoramus.......But ....
Jarman, I think, said something like "It was 12:25 or 12:28". Is that your source?
Question;.... Does 12:27 fall between 12:25 - 12:28 ? I can't give you the precise time that Lee Oswald saw Jarman and Norman walk by the 1st floor lunchroom because they never gave an exact time. But we don't need a precise time... Lee said that he saw them walk by and Jarman said that they arrived on the 5th floor at 12:28..... It doesn't require a degree in advanced mathematics to understand that Lee couldn't have been on the 6th floor and firing that carcano at 12:30.
OK. So I can likewise subtract a minute from the 12:25 part of Jarman's statement and have them walk through the back door at 12:24. That seems to work better with some of Jarman's and Norman's estimates of 12:20 to 12:25 for when they decided to go up to the fifth floor.
The people recording Oswald's claims said he was in the domino room when either two man walked through, or the two men sat down and had lunch there. Jarman and Norman, and I believe Oswald would have known this, would have to go through the domino room to get to where they routinely stored their lunches. Neither men saw Oswald while eating their lunch, so likely Oswald had no idea that the two men had already eaten.
Perhaps you should review the story..... There were only three men at the interrogation at 3:15 ...They were Fritz, Hosty, and Bookhout.... Thomas Kelly's first interrogation of Lee Oswald occurred on Sunday morning just prior to the lynching of Lee Oswald. So your citing of Kelly is irrelevant Since Lee told Fritz, Hosty, and
Bookhout during that initial interrogation that he was in the first floor lunchroom when Junior and Shorty walked by. I can't understand why you want to cite a person who wasn't even there. Citing Thomas Kelly merely reveals your desperation.
Kelly says he was at the 10:30 interview on Saturday, Nov. 23rd. Those he states present were Bookhout, Fritz, US Marshall Robert Nash, Secret Service agents Grant and Sorrels, and Boyd and Hall.
"He said he ate his lunch with the colored boys who worked with him.
He described one of them as ‘Junior’, a colored boy, and the other was
a little short negro boy. He said his lunch consisted of cheese, bread,
fruit, and apples, and was the only package he had with him when he
went to work."
Bookhout, at the same interview, wrote:
"OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in
the lunch room at the Texas School Book Depository, alone, but
recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room
during this period. He stated possibly one of these employees was
called ‘Junior’ and the other was a short individual whose name he
could not recall but whom he would be able to recognize."
The part of Capt. Fritz's report dealing with the Saturday morning interview stated Oswald:
"said he ate lunch with some of the colored boys who worked with him.
One of them was called ‘Junior’ and the other one was a little short
man whose name he did not know. He said he had a cheese sandwich
and some fruit and that was the only package he had brough with him
to work and denied he had brought the long package described by
Mr. Frazier and his sister."
-
OK. So I can likewise subtract a minute from the 12:25 part of Jarman's statement and have them walk through the back door at 12:24. That seems to work better with some of Jarman's and Norman's estimates of 12:20 to 12:25 for when they decided to go up to the fifth floor.
Kelly says he was at the 10:30 interview on Saturday, Nov. 23rd. Those he states present were Bookhout, Fritz, US Marshall Robert Nash, Secret Service agents Grant and Sorrels, and Boyd and Hall.
"He said he ate his lunch with the colored boys who worked with him.
He described one of them as ‘Junior’, a colored boy, and the other was
a little short negro boy. He said his lunch consisted of cheese, bread,
fruit, and apples, and was the only package he had with him when he
went to work."
Bookhout, at the same interview, wrote:
"OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in
the lunch room at the Texas School Book Depository, alone, but
recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room
during this period. He stated possibly one of these employees was
called ‘Junior’ and the other was a short individual whose name he
could not recall but whom he would be able to recognize."
The part of Capt. Fritz's report dealing with the Saturday morning interview stated Oswald:
"said he ate lunch with some of the colored boys who worked with him.
One of them was called ‘Junior’ and the other one was a little short
man whose name he did not know. He said he had a cheese sandwich
and some fruit and that was the only package he had brough with him
to work and denied he had brought the long package described by
Mr. Frazier and his sister."
So I can likewise subtract a minute from the 12:25 part of Jarman's statement and have them walk through the back door at 12:24.
Do you believe that 12:24 falls between 12:25 and 12:28? If you actually believe that....then you need to seek mental help.
I was wrong about Kelley's first attendance at an interrogation session.... He first attended an interrogation session on Saturday . He attended the session in which James Bookhout reported that Lee told them he had eaten lunch ALONE (page 622 WR) but he'd seen the two colored employees walk by the lunchroom while he was eating his lunch.
Bookhout, at the same interview, wrote:
"OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in
the lunch room at the Texas School Book Depository, alone, but
recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room
during this period. He stated possibly one of these employees was
called ‘Junior’ and the other was a short individual whose name he
could not recall but whom he would be able to recognize."
-
This was a simple point that was being made.
My point was simpler.
If Oswald did not commit this crime, then there must have been a conspiracy to frame him to explain the evidence against him.
So you say and I agree. However, just stating this is NOT a theory it merely makes one skeptical of the official theory.
In addition, Martin refuses to even admit that he is a CTer.
There you go again. Why must somebody just have to admit something? He is apparently ashamed to be linked to folks such as yourself despite agreeing with you.
Now what are YOU babbling about? Apparently ashamed?
You are incorrigible.
Without stating "his rifle"...with what evidence do you place Oswald as the 6th floor shooter?
-
So I can likewise subtract a minute from the 12:25 part of Jarman's statement and have them walk through the back door at 12:24.
Do you believe that 12:24 falls between 12:25 and 12:28? If you actually believe that....then you need to seek mental help.
12:24 falls between the 12:20-to-12:25 that were given as estimates. The men entering at 12:25 would give Lunchroom Os nearly five minutes to get upstairs and in place.
I was wrong about Kelley's first attendance at an interrogation session.... He first attended an interrogation session on Saturday . He attended the session in which James Bookhout reported that Lee told them he had eaten lunch ALONE (page 622 WR) but he'd seen the two colored employees walk by the lunchroom while he was eating his lunch.
Bookhout, at the same interview, wrote:
"OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in
the lunch room at the Texas School Book Depository, alone, but
recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room
during this period. He stated possibly one of these employees was
called ‘Junior’ and the other was a short individual whose name he
could not recall but whom he would be able to recognize."
That's nice, but Bookhout says Oswald wasn't alone for long. Both Kelley and Fritz say Oswald claimed to have eaten lunch with the two men. Oswald heard Jarman and Norman arrive beneath the open window on the sixth floor. He guessed wrongly that the two men had just finished eating lunch together. He tried to make it seem like he was also there.
-
12:24 falls between the 12:20-to-12:25 that were given as estimates. The men entering at 12:25 would give Lunchroom Os nearly five minutes to get upstairs and in place.
That's nice, but Bookhout says Oswald wasn't alone for long. Both Kelley and Fritz say Oswald claimed to have eaten lunch with the two men. Oswald heard Jarman and Norman arrive beneath the open window on the sixth floor. He guessed wrongly that the two men had just finished eating lunch together. He tried to make it seem like he was also there.
Oswald heard Jarman and Norman arrive beneath the open window on the sixth floor. He guessed wrongly that the two men had just finished eating lunch together. He tried to make it seem like he was also there.
Repeating a made up story, for which there is not a shred of evidence, doesn't make it true. Also, it would be pretty stupid to claim that you ate lunch which people who can and will deny it the first time they are asked. I don't believe Oswald was that stupid.
You seem to be ignoring that there are contradictions in the various reports, which can only be attributed to sloppy work by those who wrote the reports. What is usually correct is what all the reports agree on, which is that Oswald placed Jarman and Norman at the exact location where they actually were.
-
12:24 falls between the 12:20-to-12:25 that were given as estimates. The men entering at 12:25 would give Lunchroom Os nearly five minutes to get upstairs and in place.
That's nice, but Bookhout says Oswald wasn't alone for long. Both Kelley and Fritz say Oswald claimed to have eaten lunch with the two men. Oswald heard Jarman and Norman arrive beneath the open window on the sixth floor. He guessed wrongly that the two men had just finished eating lunch together. He tried to make it seem like he was also there.
OMG!.... Why do you persist in making a fool of yourself ?.... And why is it so important to you that Lee Oswald has to be guilty?
Page 23 of Hosty's book, Assignment: Oswald
Fritz: Where were you when the president went by the book depository?
Lee Oswald: I was eating my lunch in the first floor lunchroom.
-
My point was simpler.
So you say and I agree. However, just stating this is NOT a theory it merely makes one skeptical of the official theory.There you go again. Why must somebody just have to admit something? Now what are YOU babbling about? You are incorrigible.
Without stating "his rifle"...with what evidence do you place Oswald as the 6th floor shooter?
Pretty simple again. If someone claims that Oswald couldn't have been on the 6th floor because he couldn't have reached the 2nd floor lunchroom (where we know he was after the assassination), then that means they have concluded that Oswald couldn't have been assassin. That's the only implication that can be drawn. Yet Martin refuses to acknowledge this by having the courage of his own convictions. It is an intellectually dishonest position to suggest something is a fact but then refuse to confirm that the direct implication of that fact is your position. Rather it is a lazy defense attorney tactic to suggest doubt without ever having a position to defend. Perhaps you can explain how or why someone who believes Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor is not a conspiracy theorist?
-
Pretty simple again. If someone claims that Oswald couldn't have been on the 6th floor because he couldn't have reached the 2nd floor lunchroom (where we know he was after the assassination), then that means they have concluded that Oswald couldn't have been assassin. That's the only implication that can be drawn. Yet Martin refuses to acknowledge this by having the courage of his own convictions. It is an intellectually dishonest position to suggest something is a fact but then refuse to confirm that the direct implication of that fact is your position. Rather it is a lazy defense attorney tactic to suggest doubt without ever having a position to defend. Perhaps you can explain how or why someone who believes Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor is not a conspiracy theorist?
Perhaps you can explain how or why someone who believes Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor is not a conspiracy theorist?
You really can't figure this out by yourself? Really?
Let me try to enlighten you. There are two possibilities and both could be true. I don't care which one is true as long as it can be proven to be true with actual evidence. Some people are interested in trying to find out who was in which conspiracy to kill Kennedy and how they did it, if Oswald turns out not to be the lone gunman. I couldn't care less. If there was a conspiracy, there is no point for me to waste my time on trying to figure out what really happened and who was involved, because that ship sailed a long time ago.
My only interest is finding out whether Oswald was indeed the lone gunman as the WC claimed and for that I scrutinize the evidence and the narrative. If, at the end if the day, it turns out that the evidence is conclusive enough to justify the conclusion that Oswald did it and did it alone, then so be it. If it doesn't, then there likely was a conspiracy but that's far beyond the scope of my interest, so you insisting in calling me a Conspiracy Theorist is just about the most stupid thing you have done so far.
-
I can't decipher what you are babbling about here. This was a simple point that was being made. If Oswald did not commit this crime, then there must have been a conspiracy to frame him to explain the evidence against him.
False dichotomy. Next?
-
It’s pretty obvious that the reason “Richard” is trying so hard to turn it around on Martin is because he can’t explain how Oswald could have gotten from the sixth floor to the second floor unnoticed. All he can do is keep insisting that the “evidence he left there” proves he was on the sixth floor at 12:30 (which is false).
-
12:24 falls between the 12:20-to-12:25 that were given as estimates. The men entering at 12:25 would give Lunchroom Os nearly five minutes to get upstairs and in place.
That's nice, but Bookhout says Oswald wasn't alone for long. Both Kelley and Fritz say Oswald claimed to have eaten lunch with the two men. Oswald heard Jarman and Norman arrive beneath the open window on the sixth floor. He guessed wrongly that the two men had just finished eating lunch together. He tried to make it seem like he was also there.
Why are so so insistent that Lee was on the sixth floor firing that old carcano at 12:30 ?.... Your theory doesn't make sense. It seems to be rooted in a deep bitter hatred for Lee Oswald, a man you didn't even know.
In his scribbled notes which he jotted down during the 3:15 interrogation session Fritz wrote that Lee said that he was in the 1st floor lunchroom when the president passed by the TSBD. And Lee also said that he saw "junior and Shorty walk by at the time he was there in the lunchroom. "Junior Jarman confirmed that He and Shorty Norman had walked past the lunchroom on their way to the 5th floor, and they arrived on the 5th floor at 12:28.
On page 622 of the WR FBI agent Bookhout wrote Quote: " Oswald stated that that on November 22 1963 he had eaten his lunch in the lunch room at the Texas School Book Depository alone, but recalled that possibly two Negro employees walking through the room during this period. He stated that possibly one of these employees was called "Junior" and the other was a short individual"...Unquote.
How much information do you need to understand that Lee Oswald was in that lunchroom when Junior Jarman and Harold Norman walked by??
-
Both Kelley and Fritz say Oswald claimed to have eaten lunch with the two men.
Fritz’s handwritten notes just say “say two negr came in. One Jr. + short negro”.
-
Fritz’s handwritten notes just say “say two negr came in. One Jr. + short negro”.
Fritz’s handwritten notes just say “say two negr came in. One Jr. + short negro”.
Lee also said that he saw "junior and Shorty walk by at the time he was there in the lunchroom. "Junior Jarman confirmed that He and Shorty Norman had walked past the lunchroom on their way to the 5th floor, and they arrived on the 5th floor at 12:28.
On page 622 of the WR FBI agent Bookhout wrote Quote: " Oswald stated that that on November 22 1963 he had eaten his lunch in the lunch room at the Texas School Book Depository alone, but recalled that possibly two Negro employees walking through the room during this period. He stated that possibly one of these employees was called "Junior" and the other was a short individual"...Unquote.
-
Fritz’s handwritten notes just say “say two negr came in. One Jr. + short negro”.
Lee also said that he saw "junior and Shorty walk by at the time he was there in the lunchroom. "Junior Jarman confirmed that He and Shorty Norman had walked past the lunchroom on their way to the 5th floor, and they arrived on the 5th floor at 12:28.
What was said (by one) was 12:25 or 12:28. Both of them said it could have been earlier. But even the 12:25 or 12:28 time doesn't mean we have to go with the time nearest the assassination. I doubt they would leave it so last minute, plus they have to travel up the elevator, walk across the fifth floor, try to open up windows, and then Williams has to hear this and come down. If Williams decides to go to the fifth floor at 12:29, then he's leaving near to or just as the Presidential limousine is entering Dealey Plaza.
On page 622 of the WR FBI agent Bookhout wrote Quote: " Oswald stated that that on November 22 1963 he had eaten his lunch in the lunch room at the Texas School Book Depository alone, but recalled that possibly two Negro employees walking through the room during this period. He stated that possibly one of these employees was called "Junior" and the other was a short individual"...Unquote.
The only "room" mentioned by Bookhout is the "lunch room" which has to be the same room that Bookhout places the "two Negro employees walking through". "Walking through" a specified room is not the same as walking by the outside of that room.
And we're supposed to ignore these accounts:
"He said he ate his lunch with the colored boys who worked with him.
He described one of them as ‘Junior’, a colored boy, and the other was
a little short negro boy. He said his lunch consisted of cheese, bread,
fruit, and apples, and was the only package he had with him when he
went to work." -- Kelley
"said he ate lunch with some of the colored boys who worked with him.
One of them was called ‘Junior’ and the other one was a little short
man whose name he did not know. He said he had a cheese sandwich
and some fruit and that was the only package he had brough with him
to work and denied he had brought the long package described by
Mr. Frazier and his sister." -- Capt. Fritz
-
Pretty simple again. If someone claims that Oswald couldn't have been on the 6th floor because he couldn't have reached the 2nd floor lunchroom (where we know he was after the assassination), then that means they have concluded that Oswald couldn't have been assassin. That's the only implication that can be drawn. Yet Martin refuses to acknowledge this by having the courage of his own convictions. It is an intellectually dishonest position to suggest something is a fact but then refuse to confirm that the direct implication of that fact is your position. Rather it is a lazy defense attorney tactic to suggest doubt without ever having a position to defend. Perhaps you can explain how or why someone who believes Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor is not a conspiracy theorist?
Richard continues to chase his tail.
If someone doesn't believe the official story then they surmise that there was a cover-up.
Therefore concluding that there was a cover-up.....and I do believe there was a cover-up with substantial certainty.
Therefore ---this is no longer a theory...it is a revelation ;)
Cheers
-
Aren’t you ignoring the ones that say “lunch alone”, and “walked through the room”, and “came in”?
They can’t all be right.
-
Aren’t you ignoring the ones that say “lunch alone”, and “walked through the room”, and “came in”?
They can’t all be right.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3571.msg138363.html#msg138363
I believe I gave all three descriptions of the Saturday interview. Walt seems to think only Bookhout was there.
-
Fritz’s handwritten notes just say “say two negr came in. One Jr. + short negro”.
They "Came in".... What that means is not clear...it's open to interpretation.....I personally would interpret that to mean that they "came in" from outside ...... And since Jarman and Norman said nothing about entering the lunchroom it understood that the were not referring to the Domino Room.
-
What was said (by one) was 12:25 or 12:28. Both of them said it could have been earlier. But even the 12:25 or 12:28 time doesn't mean we have to go with the time nearest the assassination. I doubt they would leave it so last minute, plus they have to travel up the elevator, walk across the fifth floor, try to open up windows, and then Williams has to hear this and come down. If Williams decides to go to the fifth floor at 12:29, then he's leaving near to or just as the Presidential limousine is entering Dealey Plaza.
The only "room" mentioned by Bookhout is the "lunch room" which has to be the same room that Bookhout places the "two Negro employees walking through". "Walking through" a specified room is not the same as walking by the outside of that room.
And we're supposed to ignore these accounts:
"He said he ate his lunch with the colored boys who worked with him.
He described one of them as ‘Junior’, a colored boy, and the other was
a little short negro boy. He said his lunch consisted of cheese, bread,
fruit, and apples, and was the only package he had with him when he
went to work." -- Kelley
"said he ate lunch with some of the colored boys who worked with him.
One of them was called ‘Junior’ and the other one was a little short
man whose name he did not know. He said he had a cheese sandwich
and some fruit and that was the only package he had brough with him
to work and denied he had brought the long package described by
Mr. Frazier and his sister." -- Capt. Fritz
The only "room" mentioned by Bookhout is the "lunch room" which has to be the same room that Bookhout places the "two Negro employees walking through". "Walking through" a specified room is not the same as walking by the outside of that room.
Good!...now we're starting to break this down.... And we can parse Bookhout's report.
Bookhout was unfamiliar with the TSBD and thus he didn't understand that it would have been utterly stupid for Jarman & Norman to " walk through" a room that had only one entrance / exit portal. They were in a hurry to get to the 5th floor before the president's parade arrived so they sure as hell wouldn't have played "ring around the lunch table" with Lee Oswald sitting there. Wherever BookHout heard that J&N walked through the room whoever said that had to have been referring to the SHIPPING ROOM but Bookhout didn't know that.
-
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3571.msg138363.html#msg138363
I believe I gave all three descriptions of the Saturday interview. Walt seems to think only Bookhout was there.
On Friday afternoon at 3:15 there were only three men present in the interrogation of lee Oswald....Fritz, Hosty, and Bookhout. Those who cite Thomas Kelly are citing the report of a man who wasn't even there.... Kelley clearly obtained some of his information from the reports of Hosty and Bookhout and he misinterpreted the reports.
-
Aren’t you ignoring the ones that say “lunch alone”, and “walked through the room”, and “came in”?
They can’t all be right.
Oh yes they can! Lee said he had Lunch in the Domino room ALONE.... And Jarman and Norman said that they did not eat lunch with lee Oswald.... All involved agree....
Walked through the room .... Lee said they walked by the Domino room....And J&N said that they walked by the Domino room ....all involved agree
Came in......Lee said that J&N came in ( from outside the building ) and J &N said that they were outside and entered the building through the back door....... All involved agree.
-
I can understand Richard Smiths point about Oswalds 2 possible options to get from 6th floor to 2nd floor, but I cannot see how Mrs. Garner is refuted by suggesting the elevator trip is impossible.
The elevator trip is impossible only if you are absolutely certain that Oswald acted alone and was the 6th floor shooter.
There is the possibility of a small conspiracy scenario that one other person aided Oswald to use the East elevator by operating it to get Oswald from 6th to 2nd floor as soon as 50 sec post shots then the accomplice returns elevator to 5th floor by 70 secs post shots.
But because of the PM person appearing to be Oswald and the Hosty note contributing to PM likely to be Oswald , and the apparent sighting by Oswald of Norman/Jarman as they returned approx 12:25 and Carolyn Arnold’s 12:25 sighting of Oswald in the front lobby, Oswald becomes a low probability candidate to be the 6th floor assassin.
The East elevator scenario is more probable as means of escape for an unknown assassin and either a 2nd unknown accomplice or some other TSBD employee such as Jack Dougherty who was coincidentally in vicinity of 5th floor at time of shooting and he even admitted being on 6th floor just before the shots were fired.
-
I can understand Richard Smiths point about Oswalds 2 possible options to get from 6th floor to 2nd floor, but I cannot see how Mrs. Garner is refuted by suggesting the elevator trip is impossible.
The elevator trip is impossible only if you are absolutely certain that Oswald acted alone and was the 6th floor shooter.
There is the possibility of a small conspiracy scenario that one other person aided Oswald to use the East elevator by operating it to get Oswald from 6th to 2nd floor as soon as 50 sec post shots then the accomplice returns elevator to 5th floor by 70 secs post shots.
Zeon - thanks for focusing on the topic and not personal commentary. I disagree with you about the elevators, however. That is a wildly implausible and baseless scenario. Why would Oswald need someone to operate the elevator or care whether it went back up to the higher floors? Why wouldn't he take it to the first floor instead of stopping on the second? Was he thirsty after the assassination and needed to pause for a cold one? The point being that if Oswald didn't use the stairs, as Martin has suggested is a fact based on his analysis of the evidence, that eliminates him as the assassin. There was no other way to reach the 2nd floor lunchroom from the 6th floor if he didn't use the stairs. The amusing part, however, is that Martin refuses to accept the implications of his own analysis. For some inexplicable reason, he refuses to acknowledge that he believes Oswald is innocent or that there was a conspiracy. The only logical implications of his analysis. Instead, like Inspector Clouseau, he suspects everyone, and he suspects no one. An endless contrarian game that can never reach any conclusion. A world of mystery.
-
Zeon - thanks for focusing on the topic and not personal commentary. I disagree with you about the elevators, however. That is a wildly implausible and baseless scenario. Why would Oswald need someone to operate the elevator or care whether it went back up to the higher floors? Why wouldn't he take it to the first floor instead of stopping on the second? Was he thirsty after the assassination and needed to pause for a cold one? The point being that if Oswald didn't use the stairs, as Martin has suggested is a fact based on his analysis of the evidence, that eliminates him as the assassin. There was no other way to reach the 2nd floor lunchroom from the 6th floor if he didn't use the stairs. The amusing part, however, is that Martin refuses to accept the implications of his own analysis. For some inexplicable reason, he refuses to acknowledge that he believes Oswald is innocent or that there was a conspiracy. The only logical implications of his analysis. Instead, like Inspector Clouseau, he suspects everyone, and he suspects no one. An endless contrarian game that can never reach any conclusion. A world of mystery.
thanks for focusing on the topic and not personal commentary.
said the same guy, who then, for no reason at all, drags me into this post with personal commentary;
Instead, like Inspector Clouseau, he suspects everyone, and he suspects no one. An endless contrarian game that can never reach any conclusion. A world of mystery.
Says it all, really....
-
For some inexplicable reason, he refuses to acknowledge that he believes Oswald is innocent or that there was a conspiracy.
It’s not inexplicable at all. Unlike you, he requires evidence to form a belief. There’s no evidence that Oswald was on the sixth floor at 12:30 or that he came down the stairs in the following 75 seconds, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
An endless contrarian game that can never reach any conclusion.
Merely “reaching a conclusion” is no virtue if it’s just based on guesswork, could-have-beens, and speculation.
-
said the same guy, who then, for no reason at all, drags me into this post with personal commentary;
It should come as a surprise to nobody that “Richard” is a raging hypocrite.
-
thanks for focusing on the topic and not personal commentary.
said the same guy, who then, for no reason at all, drags me into this post with personal commentary;
Instead, like Inspector Clouseau, he suspects everyone, and he suspects no one. An endless contrarian game that can never reach any conclusion. A world of mystery.
Says it all, really....
I've been discussing this with you for weeks. You ran away once you figured out that your contrarian nonsense had finally required you to take a position. Why you so intensely resist the implications of your own conclusions is a source of great amusement. You claimed that Oswald could not have come down the stairs unnoticed from the 6th floor to the lunchroom. Either that claim is false or you are a conspiracy theorist as that is the ONLY way Oswald could have made it down from the 6th floor for the Baker encounter. All the endless commentary and victim pleading doesn't deflect from the topic.
-
I've been discussing this with you for weeks. You ran away once you figured out that your contrarian nonsense had finally required you to take a position. Why you so intensely resist the implications of your own conclusions is a source of great amusement. You claimed that Oswald could not have come down the stairs unnoticed from the 6th floor to the lunchroom. Either that claim is false or you are a conspiracy theorist as that is the ONLY way Oswald could have made it down from the 6th floor for the Baker encounter. All the endless commentary and victim pleading doesn't deflect from the topic.
Your obsession with me and what you think I should or should not believe is duly noted.
Your strawman crap is exactly that.... crap!
You can't seriously expect me to discuss anything with you and/or consider anything you say as relevant, when you come up with idiotic beauties likes this one;
The best evidence that it could be done is that it was done. Just because we can't know all the details doesn't mean we can't reach any conclusions.
Btw, have you figured out by now how Oswald could have gone down the stairs, within 75 seconds after the last shot, without being seen or heard by anybody, or do you still need more time to come up with a plausible scenario?
-
Still waiting for “Richard” to justify his silly notion that “Oswald couldn’t have come down unnoticed within 75 seconds” somehow equates to “conspiracy theory”.
-
Your obsession with me and what you think I should or should not believe is duly noted.
Your strawman crap is exactly that.... crap!
You can't seriously expect me to discuss anything with you and/or consider anything you say as relevant, when you come up with idiotic beauties likes this one;
Btw, have you figured out by now how Oswald could have gone down the stairs, within 75 seconds after the last shot, without being seen or heard by anybody, or do you still need more time to come up with a plausible scenario?
So much endless personal commentary - and I'm obsessed with you! LOL. Here is a simple question on topic.
Could Oswald have gotten down the stairs from the 6th floor to the lunchroom unnoticed after the assassination?
-
So much endless personal commentary - and I'm obsessed with you! LOL. Here is a simple question on topic.
Could Oswald have gotten down the stairs from the 6th floor to the lunchroom unnoticed after the assassination?
Don't answer my question with a question.
You foolishly claimed that "the best evidence that it could be done is that it was done" which is utter nonsense. When you claim Oswald did come down the stairs, just after the shots, you need to prove it and not, rather pathetically, ask me if it could be done.
-
It seems Richard still hasn't been able to come up with a plausible scenario for how Oswald could have gone down the stairs, within 75 seconds after the last shot, without being seen.
No wonder the WC basically ignored this problem and desperately tried to discredit Victoria Adams with a physically impossible narrative.
-
It seems Richard still hasn't been able to come up with a plausible scenario for how Oswald could have gone down the stairs, within 75 seconds after the last shot, without being seen.
No wonder the WC basically ignored this problem and desperately tried to discredit Victoria Adams with a physically impossible narrative.
Richard still hasn't been able to come up with a plausible scenario for how Oswald could have gone down the stairs, within 75 seconds after the last shot,
When LBJ's "Special Blue Ribbon Committee "re-enacted the imagined movements of Lee Oswald .....They used the sound of the FIRST shot as the starting point for the stop watch.
-
Richard still hasn't been able to come up with a plausible scenario for how Oswald could have gone down the stairs, within 75 seconds after the last shot,
When LBJ's "Special Blue Ribbon Committee "re-enacted the imagined movements of Lee Oswald .....They used the sound of the FIRST shot as the starting point for the stop watch.
And they somehow forgot to ask Victoria Adams to participate. Go figure...
-
Don't answer my question with a question.
You foolishly claimed that "the best evidence that it could be done is that it was done" which is utter nonsense. When you claim Oswald did come down the stairs, just after the shots, you need to prove it and not, rather pathetically, ask me if it could be done.
The same twisted logic as the Tippit shooting...Appearing at the scene and executing the crime in less than 15 minutes could happen because it did :-\
-
The same twisted logic as the Tippit shooting...Appearing at the scene and executing the crime in less than 15 minutes could happen because it did :-\
And then there's the "Grassy Knoll Assassin" who must be there because Sam Holland saw a "puff of smoke". :D
-
And then there's the "Grassy Knoll Assassin" who must be there because Sam Holland saw a "puff of smoke". :D
Who said that?
-
It seems Richard still hasn't been able to come up with a plausible scenario for how Oswald could have gone down the stairs, within 75 seconds after the last shot, without being seen.
No wonder the WC basically ignored this problem and desperately tried to discredit Victoria Adams with a physically impossible narrative.
You made a specific claim that Oswald could not have come down the stairs unnoticed after the assassination. Your claim excludes Oswald as the assassin as there was no other apparent way he could have made it to the lunchroom from the 6th floor other than the stairs. You, however, have run away from the only implication of your own claim like a scared child. It's very amusing. Your disagreement is not with me but yourself. You keep trying to deflect this to some other topic rather than accept your own analysis and confirm that you are a CTer. I've explained my position to you on the stairs. The evidence indicates that Oswald was in the SN at 12:30 (you know that evidence and just want to deflect to yet another meaningless debate on the topic) and the evidence confirms that Oswald was in the lunchroom shortly later for the encounter with Baker. The exact timing of the movements of Oswald and others you have cited in your amusing analysis are simply not knowable to the degree of certainty that you insist is accurate to preclude Oswald from having used the stairs. There is insufficient detailed information to reach that conclusion. Thus, you cannot preclude Oswald from having simply gone down the stairs and the evidence suggest that is exactly what he must have done. But again, if you are convinced of your own analysis explain to us how you are not a CTer? If Oswald did not use the stairs, he obviously was not the assassin as there was no other apparent way for him to have reached the 2nd floor. That is the only implication that can be drawn from your assessment of the evidence. So why not just say that instead of dancing endlessly like a circus monkey to avoid accepting your own conclusion - no matter how amusing that might be?
-
"Richard" has this exactly backwards. He cannot demonstrate with evidence that Oswald was on the sixth floor at 12:30 -- he just claims that "evidence" indicates that he was without specifying what that evidence is (other than his usual false and unsubstantiated drivel), so he tries to turn it around on Martin in order to deflect from his own inability to justify his position.
-
You made a specific claim that Oswald could not have come down the stairs unnoticed after the assassination. Your claim excludes Oswald as the assassin as there was no other apparent way he could have made it to the lunchroom from the 6th floor other than the stairs. You, however, have run away from the only implication of your own claim like a scared child. It's very amusing. Your disagreement is not with me but yourself. You keep trying to deflect this to some other topic rather than accept your own analysis and confirm that you are a CTer. I've explained my position to you on the stairs. The evidence indicates that Oswald was in the SN at 12:30 (you know that evidence and just want to deflect to yet another meaningless debate on the topic) and the evidence confirms that Oswald was in the lunchroom shortly later for the encounter with Baker. The exact timing of the movements of Oswald and others you have cited in your amusing analysis are simply not knowable to the degree of certainty that you insist is accurate to preclude Oswald from having used the stairs. There is insufficient detailed information to reach that conclusion. Thus, you cannot preclude Oswald from having simply gone down the stairs and the evidence suggest that is exactly what he must have done. But again, if you are convinced of your own analysis explain to us how you are not a CTer? If Oswald did not use the stairs, he obviously was not the assassin as there was no other apparent way for him to have reached the 2nd floor. That is the only implication that can be drawn from your assessment of the evidence. So why not just say that instead of dancing endlessly like a circus monkey to avoid accepting your own conclusion - no matter how amusing that might be?
You made a specific claim that Oswald could not have come down the stairs unnoticed after the assassination. Your claim excludes Oswald as the assassin as there was no other apparent way he could have made it to the lunchroom from the 6th floor other than the stairs.
Your desperate and pathetic attempt to try to turn this thing around and make it about me is fooling nobody. It is of no significance that I don't see how Oswald could have come down the stairs without being noticed and what the implications of that are. What is significant is that you claim Oswald was in fact on the 6th floor and did manage to come down the stairs unnoticed. So it is up to you to show that he was indeed on the 6th floor and did come down the stairs and so far you have failed miserably in providing even a shred of evidence for either.
I've explained my position to you on the stairs.
No you haven't. All you've done so far is a song and dance act and ignore the basic facts of the matter.
The evidence indicates that Oswald was in the SN at 12:30
No it doesn't. You can repeat this bogus claim as often as you want but it will never become true. There is no such evidence!
the evidence confirms that Oswald was in the lunchroom shortly later for the encounter with Baker.
Yes it does, with "shorty later" being roughly 75 seconds after the last shot. So, how did he get there if he was indeed on the 6th floor at the moment of the last shot?
The exact timing of the movements of Oswald and others you have cited in your amusing analysis are simply not knowable to the degree of certainty that you insist is accurate to preclude Oswald from having used the stairs. There is insufficient detailed information to reach that conclusion.
BS. We're not talking about minutes here. All the events must, by implcation, have taken place between the last shot and the 2nd floor lunchroom encounter. Both events are roughly 75 seconds apart. You just want to keep the timeline as vague as possible to keep open a possibility for Oswald to have come down the stairs. It's a clear sign of desperation.
Thus, you cannot preclude Oswald from having simply gone down the stairs and the evidence suggest that is exactly what he must have done.
More twisted "logic"... Even if it can not be 100% precluded that Oswald could have gone down the stairs, that still doesn't mean that he did. I don't care about your flawed opinion that this is what "he must have down" because it is predominantly based on your self-serving assumption that Oswald was on the 6th floor, for which you can not present even a shred of conclusive evidence. You are simply piling up one assumption on the other.
But again, if you are convinced of your own analysis explain to us how you are not a CTer?
You really need to seek help for this obsession of yours. It's getting out of hand. It has already been explained to you, but the simplified answer is that I don't give a damn if there was a conspiracy or not and I most certainly don't have a conspiracy theory. All I am interested in is if the case against Oswald holds water or not. I can't help it if you don't understand something so basic.
If Oswald did not use the stairs, he obviously was not the assassin as there was no other apparent way for him to have reached the 2nd floor.
Wow. You figured that out all by yourself? Well done.... Having said that, your really should provide evidence (not your assumptions or speculations) that Oswald did in fact come down the stairs and managed to do so unnoticed.
-
"Richard" has this exactly backwards. He cannot demonstrate with evidence that Oswald was on the sixth floor at 12:30 -- he just claims that "evidence" indicates that he was without specifying what that evidence is (other than his usual false and unsubstantiated drivel), so he tries to turn it around on Martin in order to deflect from his own inability to justify his position.
What else is new?
It's the same old .... every time. No matter if you discuss the paper bag, the "Oswald's rifle", Oswald on the 6th floor or Oswald coming down the stairs, Richard is all talk and no substance. Just opinions based on assumptions and the classic "it's true because I say so" crap.
In fact, it is nearly impossible that Richard does not know and understand just how weak the case against Oswald actually is. Why else would he be constantly complaining about a so-called impossible standard of proof, call people who do not agree with him contrarians simply because they scrutinize the evidence more closely than he ever wil and try to deliberately muddy the water ? That's not the behavior of somebody who has confidence in the evidence and his own arguments.
This is why Richard will never ever attempt to provide a plausible scenario for Oswald coming down the stairs. He simply he hasn't got one.
-
What else is new?
It's the same old .... every time. No matter if you discuss the paper bag, the "Oswald's rifle", Oswald on the 6th floor or Oswald coming down the stairs, Richard is all talk and no substance. Just opinions based on assumptions and the classic "it's true because I say so" crap.
In fact, it is nearly impossible that Richard does not know and understand just how weak the case against Oswald actually is. Why else would he be constantly complaining about a so-called impossible standard of proof, call people who do not agree with him contrarians simply because they scrutinize the evidence more closely than he ever wil and try to delibamuddy the water ? That's not the behavior of somebody who has confidence in the evidence and his own arguments.
This is why Richard will never ever attempt to provide a plausible scenario for Oswald coming down the stairs. He simply he hasn't got one.
More deflection and personal commentary. The evidence that links Oswald to the crime is known to you and me. That has been beaten to death. You just want to go round and round and round about that again. Why? The fact remains that you claimed Oswald could not have gone down the stairs unnoticed. That is your conclusion. Those stairs are the only way that Oswald could have come down from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor lunchroom. Thus, the only implication to be drawn from YOUR conclusion is that Oswald was not the assassin. Why you struggle so mightily against accepting YOUR own conclusion is hilarious. Why would someone else need to debunk YOUR conclusion when you yourself won't acknowledge it? How and why would anyone ever "attempt to provide a plausible scenario for Oswald coming down the stairs"? LOL. What does that gibberish even mean? There are no time machines to recreate to the exact second the movements of Oswald and the other parties that you cite as though they someone had tracked their movements with a stopwatch. That is laughable. Oswald left evidence of his involvement of a crime on the 6th floor that occurred at 12:30. He is seen on the 2nd floor a few minutes later. The only way to get between those two points at that moment is the stairs. Your silly analysis of witness recollections down to the second in no way whatsoever precludes Oswald from having used the stairs. And then to suggest that this silly claim must be rebutted by time machine type evidence is a classic contrarian mindset.
-
More deflection and personal commentary. The evidence that links Oswald to the crime is known to you and me. That has been beaten to death. You just want to go round and round and round about that again. Why? The fact remains that you claimed Oswald could not have gone down the stairs unnoticed. That is your conclusion. Those stairs are the only way that Oswald could have come down from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor lunchroom. Thus, the only implication to be drawn from YOUR conclusion is that Oswald was not the assassin. Why you struggle so mightily against accepting YOUR own conclusion is hilarious. Why would someone else need to debunk YOUR conclusion when you yourself won't acknowledge it? How and why would anyone ever "attempt to provide a plausible scenario for Oswald coming down the stairs"? LOL. What does that gibberish even mean? There are no time machines to recreate to the exact second the movements of Oswald and the other parties that you cite as though they someone had tracked their movements with a stopwatch. That is laughable. Oswald left evidence of his involvement of a crime on the 6th floor that occurred at 12:30. He is seen on the 2nd floor a few minutes later. The only way to get between those two points at that moment is the stairs. Your silly analysis of witness recollections down to the second in no way whatsoever precludes Oswald from having used the stairs. And then to suggest that this silly claim must be rebutted by time machine type evidence is a classic contrarian mindset.
And here he is, proving my point;
This is why Richard will never ever attempt to provide a plausible scenario for Oswald coming down the stairs. He simply he hasn't got one.
yet again.
Why would someone else need to debunk YOUR conclusion
There is the twisted logic of somebody, who hasn't got anything conclusive to offer to support his own opinion, again. You don't need to debunk my conclusion. I've never asked you to do that. That's just a strawman you use to try to turn this thing around.
Instead I have been asking over and over again for an explanation from you for how Oswald could have come down the stairs unnoticed within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot. You just haven't got one, so instead you keep on repeating the same crap over and over again.
How and why would anyone ever "attempt to provide a plausible scenario for Oswald coming down the stairs"? LOL. What does that gibberish even mean?
If it is gibberish, then it is your own gibberish. You said it yourself; if Oswald didn't come down the stairs than he couldn't have been on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and at the 2nd floor lunchroom some 75 seconds later. That's why you need to provide at least a plausible scenario for Oswald coming down the stairs without being noticed by anybody! Got it?
There are no time machines to recreate to the exact second the movements of Oswald and the other parties that you cite as though they someone had tracked their movements with a stopwatch. That is laughable.
Nobody - except you - mentioned a stopwatch and none was needed. It's basically very simple (although I'm pretty sure you still will pretend not to understand it) but we know for a fact that shots were fired and we know that the WC reconstruction showed what the time needed was for Baker and Truly to get to the 2nd floor lunchroom after those shots. If your claim is true, somewhere inbetween those two events, which are roughly 75 seconds apart, Oswald must have gone down the stairs without being noticed. So, how did he manage to do that?
Oswald left evidence of his involvement of a crime on the 6th floor that occurred at 12:30.
BS. You assume that Oswald left evidence behind when you can't even put him on the 6th floor at 12:30. The WC used the same crappy "it was his rifle" argument to conclude that Oswald must have been on that floor. Even they did not have a shred of evidende to put Oswald on the 6th floor. It's fairytale! But even if it wasn't, in real life, even when the rifle belonged to Oswald (which is highly questionable), that still does not prove he put it there or actually was on the 6th floor at 12:30.
Oswald left evidence of his involvement of a crime on the 6th floor that occurred at 12:30. He is seen on the 2nd floor a few minutes later. The only way to get between those two points at that moment is the stairs. Your silly analysis of witness recollections down to the second in no way whatsoever precludes Oswald from having used the stairs.
You still don't understand that "he must have done" isn't actually evidence of anything except your own stupidy.
I'm getting bored with this BS. You make claims you can not support with evidence. Talking to you is a complete waste of time.
-
The First 48: Mack et al used stopwatches
to nail that one. A few seconds left over to
pause here & here if one had to.
(https://i.postimg.cc/7LjN6SzF/OSWALD-QUIET-STAIRS.png)
Bill Chapman
-
Oswald left evidence of his involvement of a crime on the 6th floor that occurred at 12:30.
BS:
You haven’t even come close to proving this assertion.
-
And here he is, proving my point;
yet again.
Why would someone else need to debunk YOUR conclusion
There is the twisted logic of somebody, who hasn't got anything conclusive to offer to support his own opinion, again. You don't need to debunk my conclusion. I've never asked you to do that. That's just a strawman you use to try to turn this thing around.
Instead I have been asking over and over again for an explanation from you for how Oswald could have come down the stairs unnoticed within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot. You just haven't got one, so instead you keep on repeating the same crap over and over again.
How and why would anyone ever "attempt to provide a plausible scenario for Oswald coming down the stairs"? LOL. What does that gibberish even mean?
If it is gibberish, then it is your own gibberish. You said it yourself; if Oswald didn't come down the stairs than he couldn't have been on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and at the 2nd floor lunchroom some 75 seconds later. That's why you need to provide at least a plausible scenario for Oswald coming down the stairs without being noticed by anybody! Got it?
There are no time machines to recreate to the exact second the movements of Oswald and the other parties that you cite as though they someone had tracked their movements with a stopwatch. That is laughable.
Nobody - except you - mentioned a stopwatch and none was needed. It's basically very simple (although I'm pretty sure you still will pretend not to understand it) but we know for a fact that shots were fired and we know that the WC reconstruction showed what the time needed was for Baker and Truly to get to the 2nd floor lunchroom after those shots. If your claim is true, somewhere inbetween those two events, which are roughly 75 seconds apart, Oswald must have gone down the stairs without being noticed. So, how did he manage to do that?
Oswald left evidence of his involvement of a crime on the 6th floor that occurred at 12:30.
BS. You assume that Oswald left evidence behind when you can't even put him on the 6th floor at 12:30. The WC used the same crappy "it was his rifle" argument to conclude that Oswald must have been on that floor. Even they did not have a shred of evidende to put Oswald on the 6th floor. It's fairytale! But even if it wasn't, in real life, even when the rifle belonged to Oswald (which is highly questionable), that still does not prove he put it there or actually was on the 6th floor at 12:30.
Oswald left evidence of his involvement of a crime on the 6th floor that occurred at 12:30. He is seen on the 2nd floor a few minutes later. The only way to get between those two points at that moment is the stairs. Your silly analysis of witness recollections down to the second in no way whatsoever precludes Oswald from having used the stairs.
You still don't understand that "he must have done" isn't actually evidence of anything except your own stupidy.
I'm getting bored with this BS. You make claims you can not support with evidence. Talking to you is a complete waste of time.
Logic is not kind to you. Here's an example.
If the evidence suggests that a person was in NY and then a few hours later in LA, then we know that this person took a plane that day to get there because that is the only means available to do so in the known timeframe. We know this even if the evidence were otherwise insufficient to prove conclusively which plane they took or the exact second it took off. There are two inferences that can be drawn from any attempt to suggest that this person did not take a plane that day. First, that the information being relied upon by the individual making this claim (you) is insufficient or wrong to support this conclusion. This is my position on your silly claim. If the evidence is sufficient to prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 and then in the 2nd floor lunchroom, then we know without any doubt that he took the stairs and was not noticed. It is possible because that is the only thing that could have happened under those circumstances. That doesn't need to be proven via a time machine. Alternative, the only other inference that can be drawn is the person in question was not in one of these places. This is your position, but you refuse to acknowledge it for some bizarre reason. Again, do you believe that Oswald was innocent because the only implication that can be drawn from your analysis is that Oswald could not have made it from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor? Why is it so hard for you to accept the only conclusion that can be drawn from your own claim? It's a hilarious insight into the contrarian mind. You take issue even with yourself.
-
Logic is not kind to you. Here's an example.
If the evidence suggests that a person was in NY and then a few hours later in LA, then we know that this person took a plane that day to get there because that is the only means available to do so in the known timeframe. We know this even if the evidence were otherwise insufficient to prove conclusively which plane they took or the exact second it took off. There are two inferences that can be drawn from any attempt to suggest that this person did not take a plane that day. First, that the information being relied upon by the individual making this claim (you) is insufficient or wrong to support this conclusion. This is my position on your silly claim. If the evidence is sufficient to prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 and then in the 2nd floor lunchroom, then we know without any doubt that he took the stairs and was not noticed. It is possible because that is the only thing that could have happened under those circumstances. That doesn't need to be proven via a time machine. Alternative, the only other inference that can be drawn is the person in question was not in one of these places. This is your position, but you refuse to acknowledge it for some bizarre reason. Again, do you believe that Oswald was innocent because the only implication that can be drawn from your analysis is that Oswald could not have made it from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor? Why is it so hard for you to accept the only conclusion that can be drawn from your own claim? It's a hilarious insight into the contrarian mind. You take issue even with yourself.
The Kooks seem to be under the impression that they've proven Oswald was in the Domino Room at 12:25 to 12:28 (time varies by Loon), the Ninja Vicky Adams left the window immediately and was on the first floor in less than a minute, and that Garner was so disinterested in the assassination aftermath she had her eyes locked on the back stairs in less than a minute.
These guys hate authority, expert analysis and established procedure. They think they're smarter than everyone else. There's no reasoning with them; they'll just die off and fade away like the Lincoln Assassinologists who promoted their Vatican theory.
-
Logic is not kind to you. Here's an example.
If the evidence suggests that a person was in NY and then a few hours later in LA, then we know that this person took a plane that day to get there because that is the only means available to do so in the known timeframe. We know this even if the evidence were otherwise insufficient to prove conclusively which plane they took or the exact second it took off. There are two inferences that can be drawn from any attempt to suggest that this person did not take a plane that day. First, that the information being relied upon by the individual making this claim (you) is insufficient or wrong to support this conclusion. This is my position on your silly claim. If the evidence is sufficient to prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 and then in the 2nd floor lunchroom, then we know without any doubt that he took the stairs and was not noticed. It is possible because that is the only thing that could have happened under those circumstances. That doesn't need to be proven via a time machine. Alternative, the only other inference that can be drawn is the person in question was not in one of these places. This is your position, but you refuse to acknowledge it for some bizarre reason. Again, do you believe that Oswald was innocent because the only implication that can be drawn from your analysis is that Oswald could not have made it from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor? Why is it so hard for you to accept the only conclusion that can be drawn from your own claim? It's a hilarious insight into the contrarian mind. You take issue even with yourself.
If the evidence suggests that a person was in NY and then a few hours later in LA, then we know that this person took a plane that day to get there because that is the only means available to do so in the known timeframe. We know this even if the evidence were otherwise insufficient to prove conclusively which plane they took or the exact second it took off. There are two inferences that can be drawn from any attempt to suggest that this person did not take a plane that day. First, that the information being relied upon by the individual making this claim (you) is insufficient or wrong to support this conclusion. This is my position on your silly claim.
Except that my "silly" claim has nothing to do with a person being in NY and then in LA. It has to do with a guy who was seen in the 2nd floor lunchroom roughly some 75 seconds after the last shot and who you claim, without any evidence whatsoever, was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. Or, to put it in words you may understand; you see a guy in LA and claim that he must have taken a plane because you believe he was in NY a few hours earlier. That's how pathetic your position is.
If the evidence is sufficient to prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 and then in the 2nd floor lunchroom, then we know without any doubt that he took the stairs and was not noticed.
"If the evidence is sufficient" ???? Really? What the hell do you mean with "sufficient"? There simply is no evidence, none, nada, to prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30. It doesn't exist outside your imagination.
What in the world does it take to make you understand that your opinions and assumptions are not evidence?
But you have proven my point;
This is why Richard will never ever attempt to provide a plausible scenario for Oswald coming down the stairs. He simply he hasn't got one.
once again.....
-
The Kooks seem to be under the impression that they've proven Oswald was in the Domino Room at 12:25 to 12:28 (time varies by Loon), the Ninja Vicky Adams left the window immediately and was on the first floor in less than a minute, and that Garner was so disinterested in the assassination aftermath she had her eyes locked on the back stairs in less than a minute.
These guys hate authority, expert analysis and established procedure. They think they're smarter than everyone else. There's no reasoning with them; they'll just die off and fade away like the Lincoln Assassinologists who promoted their Vatican theory.
All this misrepresentation of the evidence (typical for Jerry, btw) and crap, just because somebody dares to ask a LN for actual evidence for what he is claiming. Whenever a LN starts attacking people for the questions they ask, it's nothing more than an outright admission of the fact that all they have is hot air.
But since you talk about "expert analysis" why don't you give it a try and explain - without simply dismissing evidence you don't like - how Oswald could have come down the stairs unnoticed, within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot.
Go on then, show us you are actually the smart one here....
-
If the evidence is sufficient to prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30
But it’s not. Which is why your argument is invalid.
Alternative, the only other inference that can be drawn is the person in question was not in one of these places. This is your position, but you refuse to acknowledge it for some bizarre reason.
This is yet another lame attempt at shifting the burden of proof. You can either demonstrate that Oswald was on the sixth floor and got to the second floor in 75 seconds unnoticed or you cannot. You don’t just get to assume that he did.
-
The Kooks seem to be under the impression that they've proven Oswald was in the Domino Room at 12:25 to 12:28 (time varies by Loon),
No, the kooks are under the impression that they’ve proven that Oswald killed JFK.
-
The Kooks seem to be under the impression that they've proven Oswald was in the Domino Room at 12:25 to 12:28 (time varies by Loon), the Ninja Vicky Adams left the window immediately and was on the first floor in less than a minute, and that Garner was so disinterested in the assassination aftermath she had her eyes locked on the back stairs in less than a minute.
These guys hate authority, expert analysis and established procedure. They think they're smarter than everyone else. There's no reasoning with them; they'll just die off and fade away like the Lincoln Assassinologists who promoted their Vatican theory.
Yes, there is no hope of convincing them with logic, reason, or facts. If they were capable of applying these concepts, they wouldn't have come to these conclusions in the first place. What amuses me to no end is that someone like Martin is full of himself making a BS case that Oswald couldn't have gone down the stairs unnoticed based on his subjective second-by-second analysis of witness recollections. As though the witnesses he cites couldn't be off by the few seconds it would have taken to allow Oswald to pass down the stairs. Regardless, the stairs were the only means for Oswald to have made it from the 6th floor to the lunchroom in time for the Baker encounter. If Oswald couldn't have used them as Martin concludes, then that eliminates Oswald as the assassin. But Martin won't confirm this is his position. The only possible implication of his analysis being valid. He won't say that he believes Oswald is innocent or that there must have been a conspiracy to frame him even though that is the only possible conclusion to draw from accepting his claim. Astounding.
-
Yes, there is no hope of convincing them with logic, reason, or facts. If they were capable of applying these concepts, they wouldn't have come to these conclusions in the first place. What amuses me to no end is that someone like Martin is full of himself making a BS case that Oswald couldn't have gone down the stairs unnoticed based on his subjective second-by-second analysis of witness recollections. As though the witnesses he cites couldn't be off by the few seconds it would have taken to allow Oswald to pass down the stairs. Regardless, the stairs were the only means for Oswald to have made it from the 6th floor to the lunchroom in time for the Baker encounter. If Oswald couldn't have used them as Martin concludes, then that eliminates Oswald as the assassin. But Martin won't confirm this is his position. The only possible implication of his analysis being valid. He won't say that he believes Oswald is innocent or that there must have been a conspiracy to frame him even though that is the only possible conclusion to draw from accepting his claim. Astounding.
Yes, there is no hope of convincing them with logic, reason, or facts.
Says the guy who finds it completely reasonable to make up stuff, ignore basic facts and calling his own flawed opinions "logic"
What amuses me to no end is that someone like Martin is full of himself making a BS case that Oswald couldn't have gone down the stairs unnoticed based on his subjective second-by-second analysis of witness recollections. As though the witnesses he cites couldn't be off by the few seconds it would have taken to allow Oswald to pass down the stairs.
Hilarious. There isn't a witness who has stated a specific time frame and there isn't anybody claiming those non-existent estimates could be off by a few seconds. That's just another of your strawman. You can moan and whine all you want but the bottom line is still that you can not explain how Oswald managed to get down the stairs unnoticed and you never will be able to do so.
To even argue that somebody like Dorothy Garner, who was standing near the stairs on the 4th floor, could possibly have failed to see and/or hear Oswald coming down from the 5th floor and crossing the landing is preposterous. The wooden floors and stairs in that old building made it impossible for anybody standing near the stairs not to hear anybody on the stairs. If you ever had been inside the building, you would have known that. But as you are only a keyboard jockey, you clearly haven't got a clue.
He won't say that he believes Oswald is innocent or that there must have been a conspiracy to frame him even though that is the only possible conclusion to draw from accepting his claim. Astounding.
What is actually astounding is your stupidity. You still haven't figured out that when I say that I don't believe Oswald could have come down the stairs unnoticed, it's not a claim but an opinion, based on what I know so far. And opinions can be changed if somebody, who claims with absolute certainty that Oswald was on the 6th floor (that would be you), can explain how he could have managed to get down the stairs unnoticed. So far, all I have gotten from you are deflection, vague comments, personal attacks and just about anything else except an answer to my question, so I have no reason to change my opinion.
Yes, there is no hope of convincing them with logic misrepresentions of the evidence, reason assumptions based on nothing but thin air, or facts made up fairytales.
There, I fixed it for you
Btw I look forward to the next episode of "how to avoid answering a basic question because I don't like the answer"
-
Yes, there is no hope of convincing them with logic, reason, or facts.
Says the guy with no logic, reason, or facts.
What amuses me is that “Richard” is full of himself making a BS case that there is evidence placing Oswald on the sixth floor at 12:30, and instead of presenting any he desperately tries to divert by strawmanning Martin.
-
Yes, there is no hope of convincing them with logic, reason, or facts.
Says the guy who finds it completely reasonable to make up stuff, ignore basic facts and calling his own flawed opinions "logic"
What amuses me to no end is that someone like Martin is full of himself making a BS case that Oswald couldn't have gone down the stairs unnoticed based on his subjective second-by-second analysis of witness recollections. As though the witnesses he cites couldn't be off by the few seconds it would have taken to allow Oswald to pass down the stairs.
Hilarious. There isn't a witness who has stated a specific time frame and there isn't anybody claiming those non-existent estimates could be off by a few seconds. That's just another of your strawman. You can moan and whine all you want but the bottom line is still that you can not explain how Oswald managed to get down the stairs unnoticed and you never will be able to do so.
To even argue that somebody like Dorothy Garner, who was standing near the stairs on the 4th floor, could possibly have failed to see and/or hear Oswald coming down from the 5th floor and crossing the landing is preposterous. The wooden floors and stairs in that old building made it impossible for anybody standing near the stairs not to hear anybody on the stairs. If you ever had been inside the building, you would have known that. But as you are only a keyboard jockey, you clearly haven't got a clue.
He won't say that he believes Oswald is innocent or that there must have been a conspiracy to frame him even though that is the only possible conclusion to draw from accepting his claim. Astounding.
What is actually astounding is your stupidity. You still haven't figured out that when I say that I don't believe Oswald could have come down the stairs unnoticed, it's not a claim but an opinion, based on what I know so far. And opinions can be changed if somebody, who claims with absolute certainty that Oswald was on the 6th floor (that would be you), can explain how he could have managed to get down the stairs unnoticed. So far, all I have gotten from you are deflection, vague comments, personal attacks and just about anything else except an answer to my question, so I have no reason to change my opinion.
There, I fixed it for you
Btw I look forward to the next episode of "how to avoid answering a basic question because I don't like the answer"
So many words but again no answer. Do you accept the only possible implication of your conclusion that Oswald could not have come down the stairs unnoticed or not? If he didn't come down the stairs as you claim, then he couldn't be the assassin. Is that your position or not? It's a simple question.
-
So many words but again no answer. Do you accept the only possible implication of your conclusion that Oswald could not have come down the stairs unnoticed or not? If he didn't come down the stairs as you claim, then he couldn't be the assassin. Is that your position or not? It's a simple question.
The only one who is desperately trying to avoid to answer a simple question is you. It's beyond hilarious!
Stop playing silly games and just provide an explanation for how Oswald could have gone down the stairs unnoticed within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot.
Did you take lessons from Mike Lindell, who also constantly claims to have conclusive evidence and never produces it?
-
The only one who is desperately trying to avoid to answer a simple question is you. It's beyond hilarious!
Stop playing silly games and just provide an explanation for how Oswald could have gone down the stairs unnoticed within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot.
Did you take lessons from Mike Lindell, who also constantly claims to have conclusive evidence and never produces it?
Anybody with conclusive evidence would hold it high and announce that he has that conclusive evidence, and show it to the whole wide world.
I saw a photo in this morning's paper.... A Trump protestor was holding a placard that read...." Nobody is above the law"
Watta naive simpleton!!..... He had to be a LNer.....
-
So many words but again no answer. Do you accept the only possible implication of your conclusion that Oswald could not have come down the stairs unnoticed or not? If he didn't come down the stairs as you claim, then he couldn't be the assassin. Is that your position or not? It's a simple question.
Yet more insipid posturing and no evidence of Oswald being on the sixth floor at 12:30.
-
Yet more insipid posturing and no evidence of Oswald being on the sixth floor at 12:30.
No evidence of Oswald being on the sixth floor at 12:30.
True!..... But there is evidence that Lee was in the 1st flor lunchroom at 12:27.... He saw Jarman and Norman walk by that lunchroom at about 12:27.
-
Anybody with conclusive evidence would hold it high and announce that he has that conclusive evidence, and show it to the whole wide world.
I saw a photo in this morning's paper.... A Trump protestor was holding a placard that read...." Nobody is above the law"
Watta naive simpleton!!..... He had to be a LNer.....
Anybody with conclusive evidence would hold it high and announce that he has that conclusive evidence, and show it to the whole wide world.
Exactly right, Walt. But "Richard" doesn't do that and instead he tries - in vain - to put the onus on me. That, by itself, is enough to conclude that "Richard" does not have the evidence to show that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 and/or that he came down the stairs, without being noticed, within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot.
If this case had even gone to trial the prosecution (if they were stupid enough to make the claims "Richard" has been making) would be laughed out of court.
-
The only one who is desperately trying to avoid to answer a simple question is you. It's beyond hilarious!
Stop playing silly games and just provide an explanation for how Oswald could have gone down the stairs unnoticed within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot.
Did you take lessons from Mike Lindell, who also constantly claims to have conclusive evidence and never produces it?
I've answered your question a dozen times. Here it is again. There is simply insufficient information from the evidence to conclude that Oswald could not have used the stairs. In fact, the opposite. The evidence places him on the 6th floor at 12:30 and then in the 2nd floor lunchroom a few minutes later. Therefore, we know without any doubt whatsoever that he could have gone down the stairs unnoticed because that is the only possible way he could have gotten from these two points in the known timeframe. The best evidence that a thing is possible is that it happened. That is how evidence and logic work.
Again, no answer from you. Do you accept the only possible implication of your own conclusion that Oswald couldn't have come down the stairs unnoticed or not? Why the struggle to avoid accepting the only conclusion that can be drawn from YOUR own claim? It is very amusing. You go on and on suggesting that you have proved something but then won't acknowledge the only conclusion that can be drawn from your claim having validity. An exercise in self-loathing? Or dim awareness of the absurdity of your claim? Either way it's greatly amusing to watch you run away.
-
I've answered your question a dozen times. Here it is again. There is simply insufficient information from the evidence to conclude that Oswald could not have used the stairs. In fact, the opposite. The evidence places him on the 6th floor at 12:30 and then in the 2nd floor lunchroom a few minutes later. Therefore, we know without any doubt whatsoever that he could have gone down the stairs unnoticed because that is the only possible way he could have gotten from these two points in the known timeframe. The best evidence that a thing is possible is that it happened. That is how evidence and logic work.
Again, no answer from you. Do you accept the only possible implication of your own conclusion that Oswald couldn't have come down the stairs unnoticed or not? Why the struggle to avoid accepting the only conclusion that can be drawn from YOUR own claim? It is very amusing. You go on and on suggesting that you have proved something but then won't acknowledge the only conclusion that can be drawn from your claim having validity. An exercise in self-loathing? Or dim awareness of the absurdity of your claim? Either way it's greatly amusing to watch you run away.
I've answered your question a dozen times. Here it is again. There is simply insufficient information from the evidence to conclude that Oswald could not have used the stairs. In fact, the opposite. The evidence places him on the 6th floor at 12:30 and then in the 2nd floor lunchroom a few minutes later.
That's not an answer. It's utter BS and assumption piled on assumption. In the real world, there is no evidence whatsoever that places Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 and no matter how often you repeat this bogus claim, it will never be true. If there was such evidence you would have presented it a long time ago and this discussion would not have continued. There mere fact that you haven't presented this elusive evidence is enough to conclude that it doesn't exist.
Therefore, we know without any doubt whatsoever that he could have gone down the stairs unnoticed because that is the only possible way he could have gotten from these two points in the known timeframe. The best evidence that a thing is possible is that it happened.
Hilarious. It's pure speculation based on the unproven and thus false premise that Oswald was in fact on the 6th floor at 12:30.
That is how evidence and logic work.
More stupidity. There is only evidence in your imagination and calling it "logic" to "prove" one assumption with another assumption is just pathetic.
The bottom line is that you have no evidence whatsoever that places Oswald on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and/or for how he could have managed to go down the stairs within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot. You are just making stuff up and calling it evidence. :D
-
I've answered your question a dozen times. Here it is again. There is simply insufficient information from the evidence to conclude that Oswald could not have used the stairs. In fact, the opposite. The evidence places him on the 6th floor at 12:30 and then in the 2nd floor lunchroom a few minutes later.
That's not an answer. It's utter BS and assumption piled on assumption. In the real world, there is no evidence whatsoever that places Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 and no matter how often you repeat this bogus claim, it will never be true. If there was such evidence you would have presented it a long time ago and this discussion would not have continued. There mere fact that you haven't presented this elusive evidence is enough to conclude that it doesn't exist.
Therefore, we know without any doubt whatsoever that he could have gone down the stairs unnoticed because that is the only possible way he could have gotten from these two points in the known timeframe. The best evidence that a thing is possible is that it happened.
Hilarious. It's pure speculation based on the unproven and thus false premise that Oswald was in fact on the 6th floor at 12:30.
That is how evidence and logic work.
More stupidity. There is only evidence in your imagination and calling it "logic" to "prove" one assumption with another assumption is just pathetic.
The bottom line is that you have no evidence whatsoever that places Oswald on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and/or for how he could have managed to go down the stairs within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot. You are just making stuff up and calling it evidence. :D
Again, no answer to the question posed. And you are really saying again there is "no" evidence Oswald was on the 6th floor? None? Just his rifle and fired bullet casings from that rifle by the window from which multiple witnesses saw a rifle pointing out the window at 12:30. Laughable. Remind me again. You are not a CTer - right? Just a neutral party who claims Oswald couldn't have come down the stairs to the 2nd floor. The only way he could have got there had he been the assassin. And he left no evidence on the 6th floor. HA HA HA. But you won't confirm that your position is that Oswald is innocent. He just couldn't have done it per your own analysis.
-
Again, no answer to the question posed. And you are really saying again there is "no" evidence Oswald was on the 6th floor? None? Just his rifle and fired bullet casings from that rifle by the window from which multiple witnesses saw a rifle pointing out the window at 12:30. Laughable. Remind me again. You are not a CTer - right? Just a neutral party who claims Oswald couldn't have come down the stairs to the 2nd floor. The only way he could have got there had he been the assassin. And he left no evidence on the 6th floor. HA HA HA. But you won't confirm that your position is that Oswald is innocent. He just couldn't have done it per your own analysis.
Just his rifle
"his rifle" LOL
and fired bullet casings from that rifle
there is no evidence those bullet casings were fired by the MC rifle on that day. In fact, it can't even be shown that the rifle itself was fired on 11/22/63.
by the window from which multiple witnesses saw a rifle pointing out the window at 12:30.
And how exactly does any of this prove, other than by pure flawed assumption, that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30?
Answer: It doesn't!
And he left no evidence on the 6th floor. HA HA HA.
I've noticed you frequently laugh about your own stupidity. How in the world can you claim that Oswald left evidence on the 6th floor when you can't even prove that he was there when the shots were fired?
-
Just his rifle
"his rifle" LOL
and fired bullet casings from that rifle
there is no evidence those bullet casings were fired by the MC rifle on that day. In fact, it can't even be shown that the rifle itself was fired on 11/22/63.
by the window from which multiple witnesses saw a rifle pointing out the window at 12:30.
And how exactly does any of this prove, other than by pure flawed assumption, that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30?
Answer: It doesn't!
And he left no evidence on the 6th floor. HA HA HA.
I've noticed you frequently laugh about your own stupidity. How in the world can you claim that Oswald left evidence on the 6th floor when you can't even prove that he was there when the shots were fired?
There is no evidence those bullet casings were fired by the MC rifle on that day. In fact, it can't even be shown that the rifle itself was fired on 11/22/63.
But there is evidence that the spent shells were NOT fired on 11/22/63..... One of the casings has been dented and that had to have happened AFTER the shell was fired...It has always been a mystery about how that shell became dented ..... Until Mr Collins posted a cutaway drawing of the action of a Carcano..... And then it was obvious how that shell had been dented.....
Sometime prior to 11/22/63 that spent shell had been used as as filler round in a clip and it was the bottom shell in the clip ....When the clip was inserted into the magazine the elevator came in contact with the empty shell and when the person pushed the clip of cartridges down into the magazine the soft brass was dented by the elevator. During normal operation the shells have a long projectile that makes the shell a solid surface and the live round does not become dented by the elevator.
I will try to post Mr Collins illustration that shows how that shell became dented....
My computer won't cut and paste .....See page 8 of the position of the bolt handle.....
(https://i.vgy.me/O10MTc.jpg)
In this cut way the bottom cartridge has the projectile in the cartridge......but if the projectile was not in the soft brass cartridge, that steel elevator would dent the case when the clip full of cartridges was pushed down into the magazine and latched.
-
"his rifle" LOL
In fact, it can't even be shown that the rifle itself was fired on 11/22/63.
It was not tested to see if it was fired that day and it easily could have been. Why not?
-
It was not tested to see if it was fired that day and it easily could have been. Why not?
Indeed Thumb1:
"Richard" seems to believe that a rifle which Oswald allegedly ordered months earlier (which by itself is questionable) being found on the 6th floor somehow "proves" that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. It's beyond hilarious.
-
Just his rifle
"his rifle" LOL
and fired bullet casings from that rifle
there is no evidence those bullet casings were fired by the MC rifle on that day. In fact, it can't even be shown that the rifle itself was fired on 11/22/63.
by the window from which multiple witnesses saw a rifle pointing out the window at 12:30.
And how exactly does any of this prove, other than by pure flawed assumption, that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30?
Answer: It doesn't!
And he left no evidence on the 6th floor. HA HA HA.
I've noticed you frequently laugh about your own stupidity. How in the world can you claim that Oswald left evidence on the 6th floor when you can't even prove that he was there when the shots were fired?
And still no answer. Do you accept the only implication of your claim being true or not? If Oswald could not come down the stairs unnoticed as you claim, then he cannot have been the assassin. Is that your position or not? I can't fathom why this is so difficult to answer. This is YOUR claim.
-
“Richard” needs to stop demanding that Martin prove a negative and answer his question. What is the evidence that Oswald was on the sixth floor at 12:30 pointing a rifle out the window? Do you have any or not?
-
And still no answer. Do you accept the only implication of your claim being true or not? If Oswald could not come down the stairs unnoticed as you claim, then he cannot have been the assassin. Is that your position or not? I can't fathom why this is so difficult to answer. This is YOUR claim.
This is YOUR claim.
I can't fathom that you are incapable of understanding the difference between a claim and an opinion.
When I say that I can not see how Oswald could have gone down the stairs, within 75 seconds after the shots, without being noticed, I am not making a claim. It's an opinion based on the known information. Opinions can be changed when more conclusive evidence is presented!
You are the one making the claim that Oswald was on the 6th floor at the time of the shots and that he did manage to go down the stairs unnoticed. You need to, at least, explain how he was able to do that and you clearly can't.
-
This is YOUR claim.
I can't fathom that you are incapable of understanding the difference between a claim and an opinion.
When I say that I can not see how Oswald could have gone down the stairs, within 75 seconds after the shots, without being noticed, I am not making a claim. It's an opinion based on the known information. Opinions can be changed when more conclusive evidence is presented!
You are the one making the claim that Oswald was on the 6th floor at the time of the shots and that he did manage to go down the stairs unnoticed. You need to, at least, explain how he was able to do that and you clearly can't.
Run Martin run. You didn't say you cannot see how Oswald could have gone down the stairs. You said he couldn't have done it. Based on your analysis you concluded "[Oswald] didn't come down the stairs." He DIDN"T COME DOWN THE STAIRS! That is not only a "claim" but a conclusion. But it was just an "opinion" you were expressing. HA HA HA. So dishonest.
Here it is again:
"If Oswald had come down the stairs within 75 seconds after the shots, he would have been seen by Dorothy Garner, who was standing next to the stairs on the 4th floor.
She heard Adams and Styles going down on the stairs and saw Baker and Truly come up. Somewhere inbetween these two events Oswald would have be passing the 4th floor. The reason Garner did not see him is simple; he didn't come down the stairs."
-
Run Martin run. You didn't say you cannot see how Oswald could have gone down the stairs. You said he couldn't have done it. Based on your analysis you concluded "[Oswald] didn't come down the stairs." He DIDN"T COME DOWN THE STAIRS! That is not only a "claim" but a conclusion. But it was just an "opinion" you were expressing. HA HA HA. So dishonest.
Here it is again:
"If Oswald had come down the stairs within 75 seconds after the shots, he would have been seen by Dorothy Garner, who was standing next to the stairs on the 4th floor.
She heard Adams and Styles going down on the stairs and saw Baker and Truly come up. Somewhere inbetween these two events Oswald would have be passing the 4th floor. The reason Garner did not see him is simple; he didn't come down the stairs."
It is not my problem that you don't (want to) understand what you are reading.
Btw where exactly did I say in that quote that "he couldn't have done it"?
Just to refresh your memory and expose your utter dishonesty to the readers;
You have falsely claimed as a fact that Oswald could not use the stairs to reach the lunchroom unnoticed from the 6th floor.
There's nothing false about it, nor have I ever claimed any of it as a fact. I have given you countless opportunities to prove that it is false and you have completely failed to do so. That speaks for itself.
If you have evidence that shows Oswald could have gone down the stairs unnoticed and actually did, I might change my opinion.
Now how about that explanation for how Oswald could have gone and did go down the stairs, within 75 seconds after the shots, without being seen? If you can't provide this explanation my opinion stands, whether you like it or not.
-
It was not tested to see if it was fired that day and it easily could have been. Why not?
Fritz knew that the carcano had not been fired .... But he most certainly wouldn't have wanted the lowly deputies to know that, so he omitted that simply test so as not to draw attention to that fact.
-
It is not my problem that you don't (want to) understand what you are reading.
Btw where exactly did I say in that quote that "he couldn't have done it"?
LOL. You can't be for real. That is the entire point! You refuse to say Oswald couldn't have done it despite concluding that Oswald couldn't have come down the stairs. The only way that Oswald could have made it from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor lunchroom in time for the Baker encounter is to have used the stairs, but you won't confirm that you accept the ONLY possible implication from your conclusion having any validity. That Oswald couldn't have been on the 6th floor because he didn't use the stairs. It is hilarious that you continue to run away from YOUR OWN conclusion. The classic contrarian. You take issue even with yourself.
"If Oswald had come down the stairs within 75 seconds after the shots, he would have been seen by Dorothy Garner, who was standing next to the stairs on the 4th floor.
She heard Adams and Styles going down on the stairs and saw Baker and Truly come up. Somewhere inbetween these two events Oswald would have be passing the 4th floor. The reason Garner did not see him is simple; he didn't come down the stairs."
-
LOL. You can't be for real. That is the entire point! You refuse to say Oswald couldn't have done it despite concluding that Oswald couldn't have come down the stairs. The only way that Oswald could have made it from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor lunchroom in time for the Baker encounter is to have used the stairs, but you won't confirm that you accept the ONLY possible implication from your conclusion having any validity, but you won't confirm that you accept the ONLY possible implication from your conclusion having any validity, but you won't confirm that you accept the ONLY possible implication from your conclusion having any validity. That Oswald couldn't have been on the 6th floor because he didn't use the stairs. It is hilarious that you continue to run away from YOUR OWN conclusion. The classic contrarian. You take issue even with yourself.
"If Oswald had come down the stairs within 75 seconds after the shots, he would have been seen by Dorothy Garner, who was standing next to the stairs on the 4th floor.
She heard Adams and Styles going down on the stairs and saw Baker and Truly come up. Somewhere inbetween these two events Oswald would have be passing the 4th floor. The reason Garner did not see him is simple; he didn't come down the stairs."
The one not for real is you.
First you claim I said he couldn't have done it;
Run Martin run. You didn't say you cannot see how Oswald could have gone down the stairs. You said he couldn't have done it.
Now you say;
You refuse to say Oswald couldn't have done it despite concluding that Oswald couldn't have come down the stairs
So, which one is it; did I say it or did I refuse to say it?
The only way that Oswald could have made it from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor lunchroom in time for the Baker encounter is to have used the stairs, but you won't confirm that you accept the ONLY possible implication from your conclusion having any validity
Nobody cares what you believe the implication from my opinion/conclusion is. It is of no significance. My opinion is based on the available evidence and thus subject to change if and when further evidence is provided.
The real point is that you claim that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30, that he assassinated Kennedy and then ran down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot.
For more than a month now I have been asking you for evidence to support those claims and all that time you have been trying to deflect and talk about anything but that. It's pretty obvious by now that you are unable to present any credible evidence for your foolish claims. Just like the WC before you, all you have are assumptions based on assumptions.
It's a massive display of total ignorance to claim that a rifle (which you can't even show conclusively belonged to Oswald and/or was in his possession and under his control on 11/22/63) found on the 6th floor somehow proves that Oswald himself was on the 6th floor at 12:30 and killed Kennedy. It's even more pathetic to claim that Oswald then made his escape by running down the stairs unnoticed and say that the evidence that he could have done it is that he managed to do it, when you can't even present a shred of evidence for any of it.
All you have proven is that the WC report has no credibility whatsoever! The same goes of course for you. Get back to me when you have actual evidence for your little fairytales!
-
The one not for real is you.
First you claim I said he couldn't have done it;
Now you say;
So, which one is it; did I say it or did I refuse to say it?
The only way that Oswald could have made it from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor lunchroom in time for the Baker encounter is to have used the stairs, but you won't confirm that you accept the ONLY possible implication from your conclusion having any validity
Nobody cares what you believe the implication from my opinion/conclusion is. It is of no significance. My opinion is based on the available evidence and thus subject to change if and when further evidence is provided.
The real point is that you claim that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30, that he assassinated Kennedy and then ran down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot.
For more than a month now I have been asking you for evidence to support those claims and all that time you have been trying to deflect and talk about anything but that. It's pretty obvious by now that you are unable to present any credible evidence for your foolish claims. Just like the WC before you, all you have are assumptions based on assumptions.
It's a massive display of total ignorance to claim that a rifle (which you can't even show conclusively belonged to Oswald and/or was in his possession and under his control on 11/22/63) found on the 6th floor somehow proves that Oswald himself was on the 6th floor at 12:30 and killed Kennedy. It's even more pathetic to claim that Oswald then made his escape by running down the stairs unnoticed and say that the evidence that he could have done it is that he managed to do it, when you can't even present a shred of evidence for any of it.
All you have proven is that the WC report has no credibility whatsoever! The same goes of course for you. Get back to me when you have actual evidence for your little fairytales!
You have concluded that Oswald COULDN'T COME DOWN THE STAIRS unnoticed. HE COULDN"T HAVE DONE THAT (i.e. come down the stairs) according to you. Got it. But you won't accept the only possible implication of this conclusion that Oswald COULDN'T HAVE BEEN ON THE 6th FLOOR and thus COULDN'T HAVE ASSASSINATED JFK. Can you follow that simple distinction?
"If Oswald had come down the stairs within 75 seconds after the shots, he would have been seen by Dorothy Garner, who was standing next to the stairs on the 4th floor.
She heard Adams and Styles going down on the stairs and saw Baker and Truly come up. Somewhere inbetween these two events Oswald would have be passing the 4th floor. The reason Garner did not see him is simple; he didn't come down the stairs."
-
Martin didn’t say “couldn’t”, Strawman “Smith”. Are you ever going to stop with the diversions and give us your evidence that Oswald actually did what you claimed?
-
You have concluded that Oswald COULDN'T COME DOWN THE STAIRS unnoticed. HE COULDN"T HAVE DONE THAT (i.e. come down the stairs) according to you. Got it. But you won't accept the only possible implication of this conclusion that Oswald COULDN'T HAVE BEEN ON THE 6th FLOOR and thus COULDN'T HAVE ASSASSINATED JFK. Can you follow that simple distinction?
"If Oswald had come down the stairs within 75 seconds after the shots, he would have been seen by Dorothy Garner, who was standing next to the stairs on the 4th floor.
She heard Adams and Styles going down on the stairs and saw Baker and Truly come up. Somewhere inbetween these two events Oswald would have be passing the 4th floor. The reason Garner did not see him is simple; he didn't come down the stairs."
What part of "Get back to me when you have actual evidence for your little fairytales!" did you not understand?
-
What part of "Get back to me when you have actual evidence for your little fairytales!" did you not understand?
Run Martin run.
"If Oswald had come down the stairs within 75 seconds after the shots, he would have been seen by Dorothy Garner, who was standing next to the stairs on the 4th floor.
She heard Adams and Styles going down on the stairs and saw Baker and Truly come up. Somewhere inbetween these two events Oswald would have be passing the 4th floor. The reason Garner did not see him is simple; he didn't come down the stairs."
-
Run Martin run.
"If Oswald had come down the stairs within 75 seconds after the shots, he would have been seen by Dorothy Garner, who was standing next to the stairs on the 4th floor.
She heard Adams and Styles going down on the stairs and saw Baker and Truly come up. Somewhere inbetween these two events Oswald would have be passing the 4th floor. The reason Garner did not see him is simple; he didn't come down the stairs."
Quick, get help. Richard is stuck in a continuous loop and he can't find his way out, back to reality.
I'll just take this pathetic infantile deflection as confirmation that you actually can not produce even a shred of evidence for any of your claims about Oswald;
- bringing the rifle to the TSBD and hiding it there
- being on the 6th floor at 12:30, when the shots were fired
- actually shooting at Kennedy
- going down the stairs to the 2nd floor unnotices, within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot.
If anybody is running, it's you.
-
Quick, get help. Richard is stuck in a continuous loop and he can't find his way out, back to reality.
I'll just take this pathetic infantile deflection as confirmation that you actually can not produce even a shred of evidence for any of your claims about Oswald;
- bringing the rifle to the TSBD and hiding it there
- being on the 6th floor at 12:30, when the shots were fired
- actually shooting at Kennedy
- going down the stairs to the 2nd floor unnotices, within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot.
If anybody is running, it's you.
Run, Martin, run. More deflecting to other issues. You concluded, based on your analysis of the evidence, that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs." If he "didn't come down the stairs," then he couldn't have been on the 6th floor as the stairs were the ONLY way for him to have reached the 2nd floor lunchroom in time for the Baker encounter. Thus, the only implication that can be drawn from YOUR conclusion, is that Oswald is not the assassin. Why can't you just acknowledge that is your position? Why struggle so mightily against your own conclusion? I can't understand why you just don't say that you believe Oswald is innocent and that you are a CTer. It's very humorous.
-
What “other issues”? This whole sorry and obsessive exercise in trying to put words in Martin’s mouth is what the deflection is. Anything but having to actually defend your own claims.
-
I've quoted (literally) Martin's exact words but I'm somehow putting words in his mouth. The contrarian mind is astounding. Here it is again (notice the quotes):
"If Oswald had come down the stairs within 75 seconds after the shots, he would have been seen by Dorothy Garner, who was standing next to the stairs on the 4th floor.
She heard Adams and Styles going down on the stairs and saw Baker and Truly come up. Somewhere in between these two events Oswald would have be passing the 4th floor. The reason Garner did not see him is simple; he didn't come down the stairs."
Note again: "[Oswald] didn't come down the stairs."
If Oswald (notice the quotes) "didn't come down the stairs" then he couldn't have got from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor in the known timeframe to be the assassin and be there for the Baker encounter. There is simply no other way for him to have reached the 2nd floor if he "didn't come down the stairs." The only implication that can be drawn from this is that either Martin is wrong in his analysis of this event or Oswald is not the assassin.
-
Run, Martin, run. More deflecting to other issues. You concluded, based on your analysis of the evidence, that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs." If he "didn't come down the stairs," then he couldn't have been on the 6th floor as the stairs were the ONLY way for him to have reached the 2nd floor lunchroom in time for the Baker encounter. Thus, the only implication that can be drawn from YOUR conclusion, is that Oswald is not the assassin. Why can't you just acknowledge that is your position? Why struggle so mightily against your own conclusion? I can't understand why you just don't say that you believe Oswald is innocent and that you are a CTer. It's very humorous.
Clearly you believe that a CT is something to be shunned. And that's exactly what the government has promoted. The government wants anybody who rejects the official US government position, that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone nut assassin, to be scorned and mocked.
But at this late date, and with all of the information that has surfaced , that position is no longer tenable .... And only a damned fool would continue to try to promote it.
-
Run, Martin, run. More deflecting to other issues. You concluded, based on your analysis of the evidence, that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs." If he "didn't come down the stairs," then he couldn't have been on the 6th floor as the stairs were the ONLY way for him to have reached the 2nd floor lunchroom in time for the Baker encounter. Thus, the only implication that can be drawn from YOUR conclusion, is that Oswald is not the assassin. Why can't you just acknowledge that is your position? Why struggle so mightily against your own conclusion? I can't understand why you just don't say that you believe Oswald is innocent and that you are a CTer. It's very humorous.
Thank you for confirming by lack of response that you do indeed not have any credible evidence to support your claims about Oswald;
- bringing the rifle to the TSBD and hiding it there
- being on the 6th floor at 12:30, when the shots were fired
- actually shooting at Kennedy
- going down the stairs to the 2nd floor unnoticed, within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot.
That's settled then.... Thumb1:
Btw, I hope that one day you will get your obsession with me under control and find a way to get out of the continuous loop of nonsense you are stuck in.
-
I've quoted (literally) Martin's exact words but I'm somehow putting words in his mouth. The contrarian mind is astounding. Here it is again (notice the quotes):
Which you then misrepresented as “Oswald could not have come down the stairs”.
But the words you’re desperately trying to put in Martin’s mouth is “I believe Oswald is innocent”, and that’s to deflect from your own inability to prove that he’s guilty. It’s transparent as hell.
-
Thank you for confirming by lack of response that you do indeed not have any credible evidence to support your claims about Oswald;
- bringing the rifle to the TSBD and hiding it there
- being on the 6th floor at 12:30, when the shots were fired
- actually shooting at Kennedy
- going down the stairs to the 2nd floor unnoticed, within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot.
That's settled then.... Thumb1:
C’mon, “Richard”. Stop dancing and deflecting and just answer the question. Or admit that you cannot.
-
Which you then misrepresented as “Oswald could not have come down the stairs”.
But the words you’re desperately trying to put in Martin’s mouth is “I believe Oswald is innocent”, and that’s to deflect from your own inability to prove that he’s guilty. It’s transparent as hell.
But the words you’re desperately trying to put in Martin’s mouth is “I believe Oswald is innocent”,
Which is actually highly ironic coming from a die hard LN, but that aside. Richard's primitive black and white "logic" doesn't allow him to understand that even if the rifle found on the 6th floor is the same one that Oswald ordered from Klein's, that still doesn't even begin to prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor himself when the shots were fired. Along those same lines, Richard also doesn't understand that even if Oswald was not on the 6th floor, did not shoot a Kennedy and did not go down the stairs unnoticed, that doesn't necessarily mean that his is innocent.
It seems these kind of things are just too complicated for Richard to grasp. Kinda sad, really....
-
Clearly you believe that a CT is something to be shunned.
Actually it's CTs like Martin, Iacoletti and Freeman who shun the title of CT.
And that's exactly what the government has promoted. The government wants anybody who rejects the official US government position, that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone nut assassin, to be scorned and mocked.
Seems to have worked on the Three Amigos. They avoid the title of CT like the plague. Wonder why? Aren't they up on Govt. indoctrination? Or maybe they're not as astute as Walt Cakebread.
But at this late date, and with all of the information that has surfaced , that position is no longer tenable .... And only a damned fool would continue to try to promote it.
LNers don't "promote" anything. We just don't apply an impossible standard or proof to the evidence. We live in the real world. For example, we don't use a fuzzy version of the Powell photo when there's better defined versions of the same photo.
-
Actually it's CTs like Martin, Iacoletti and Freeman who shun the title of CT.
Seems to have worked on the Three Amigos. They avoid the title of CT like the plague. Wonder why? Aren't they up on Govt. indoctrination? Or maybe they're not as astute as Walt Cakebread.
LNers don't "promote" anything. We just don't apply an impossible standard or proof to the evidence. We live in the real world. For example, we don't use a fuzzy version of the Powell photo when there's better defined versions of the same photo.
Actually it's CTs like Martin
Please explain how somebody who has no conspiracy theory and who couldn't care less if there actually was a conspiracy or if Oswald did it alone, can be deemed to be a conspiracy theorist?
LNers don't "promote" anything.
Except for a pathetic official narrative that can not survive the slightest scrutiny......
We just don't apply an impossible standard or proof to the evidence.
This is absolutely true. You (not sure who "we" are) apply no standard at all and take everything at face value.
-
Actually it's CTs like Martin, Iacoletti and Freeman who shun the title of CT.
A “CT” is somebody who has a conspiracy theory, not somebody who looks at the evidence and finds it weak, circumstantial, and tainted.
LNers don't "promote" anything.
Bull. You promote the official fantasy narrative like it’s gospel.
-
Actually it's CTs like Martin, Iacoletti and Freeman who shun the title of CT.
Seems to have worked on the Three Amigos. They avoid the title of CT like the plague. Wonder why? Aren't they up on Govt. indoctrination? Or maybe they're not as astute as Walt Cakebread.
LNers don't "promote" anything. We just don't apply an impossible standard or proof to the evidence. We live in the real world. For example, we don't use a fuzzy version of the Powell photo when there's better defined versions of the same photo.
LNers don't "promote" anything.
_Then you must have missed my latest PSA announcements
Plain & simple: Oswald got what he deserved
-
Actually it's CTs like Martin
Please explain how somebody who has no conspiracy theory and who couldn't care less if there actually was a conspiracy or if Oswald did it alone, can be deemed to be a conspiracy theorist?
Allow, then, that most "LNers" would accept a conspiracy if reliable evidence was forthcoming. You long ago took Oswald as lone-assassin off the table.
LNers don't "promote" anything.
Except for a pathetic official narrative
Spoken like a true CT.
that can not survive the slightest scrutiny......
Your "scrutiny" isn't "slight". As lawyers Mason and Bugliosi point out, it's an impossible standard that CTs impose. As well the totality of the evidence is downplayed by CTs.
We just don't apply an impossible standard or proof to the evidence.
This is absolutely true. You (not sure who "we" are) apply no standard at all and take everything at face value.
That would be you (promoting conspiracy) with Adams and Garner.
-
Allow, then, that most "LNers" would accept a conspiracy if reliable evidence was forthcoming. You long ago took Oswald as lone-assassin off the table.
LNers don't "promote" anything.
Except for a pathetic official narrative
Spoken like a true CT.
Your "scrutiny" isn't "slight". As lawyers Mason and Bugliosi point out, it's an impossible standard that CTs impose. As well the totality of the evidence is downplayed by CTs.
That would be you (promoting conspiracy) with Adams and Garner.
Allow, then, that most "LNers" would accept a conspiracy if reliable evidence was forthcoming.
After a great number of years, I still have to meet the first LN who is prepared to even consider the possibility of a conspiracy.
You long ago took Oswald as lone-assassin off the table.
Only in your dreams (or should I say; nightmares?). I have always left open the possibility of Oswald being a lone gunman but the lack of reliable conclusive evidence does not make it easy to continue to do so.
LNers don't "promote" anything.
Except for a pathetic official narrative
Spoken like a true CT.
You don't have to be a CT to conclude that the WC narrative is superficial and full of assumptions not supported by the evidence.
Your "scrutiny" isn't "slight". As lawyers Mason and Bugliosi point out, it's an impossible standard that CTs impose. As well the totality of the evidence is downplayed by CTs.
A pathetic and misguided appeal to authority. Any lawyer who knows anything about this case understands it's apparent weaknesses. One way to deflect away from that is complain that their unconvincing evidence can not persuade people because they have an impossible standard of proof. It is in fact no more than an outright admission of the lack of credible, conclusive evidence.
Richard Smith claims that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 when the shots were fired and that he somehow must have managed to go down the stairs unnoticed with roughly 75 seconds after the last shot.
The so-called "impossible standard of proof" you and your ilk are complaining about is the completely reasonable request for evidence that actually shows Oswald was indeed on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and an explanation of how he could have gone down the stairs without being noticed.
This is how pathetic this "impossible standard of proof" BS truly is.
That would be you (promoting conspiracy) with Adams and Garner.
Looking honestly at the evidence about Adams and Garner has nothing to do with a conspiracy. The Adams/Garner scenario is far more plausible and conclusive than that "Oswald coming down the stairs unseen by anybody" fairytale for which there is not a shred of evidence at all.
But if you want to discuss the Adams/Garner scenario in detail, please go ahead and provide me with an alternative scenario that fits all the known facts, or would that be another request for an "impossible standard of proof"?
The LN complaint in a nutshell;
“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell” ― Carl Sandburg
-
A “CT” is somebody who has a conspiracy theory, not somebody who looks at the evidence and finds it weak, circumstantial, and tainted.
Bull. You promote the official fantasy narrative like it’s gospel.
A “CT” is somebody who has a conspiracy theory, not somebody who looks at the evidence and finds it weak, circumstantial, and tainted.
A “CT” is somebody who has a conspiracy theory, not somebody who looks at the evidence and finds it weak, circumstantial, and tainted.
Well by that definition I'm not a CT...... Because I do have a theory that LBJ and Hoover were the prime culprits....and I sure as hell don't find the "evidence" that been dumped on us at all convincing.....
I believe that the "evidence" of the spent shells and the hidden Carcano were nothing but stage props..... I'm 100% certain that the spent shells were not fired that day.
-
A “CT” is somebody who has a conspiracy theory, not somebody who looks at the evidence and finds it weak, circumstantial, and tainted.
Well by that definition I'm not a CT...... Because I do have a theory that LBJ and Hoover were the prime culprits....and I sure as hell find the "evidence" that been dumped on us at all convincing.....
I believe that the "evidence" of the spent shells and the hidden Carcano were nothing but stage props..... I'm 100% certain that the spent shells were not fired that day.
Sure, Walt. You might as well not be a CT either. You at least accept some LN evidence, like the Backyard Photos.
-
Sure, Walt. You might as well not be a CT either. You at least accept some LN evidence, like the Backyard Photos.
Oops... Jerry, your ignorance is on full display. I have never questioned or denied the authenticity of the BY photos.
So, in your mind, now I'm not a CT after all?
But wait, I do take issue with the meaning the LNs attach to those photos and question the evidentiary value of the photos.
Does that make me a CT again?....... :D :D :D :D :D
-
Sure, Walt. You might as well not be a CT either. You at least accept some LN evidence, like the Backyard Photos.
The backyard photos tell you exactly nothing about who killed Kennedy.
-
Now, why do I get the feeling that Jerry is merely trying to create a diversion to obscure the fact that Richard Smith is running as fast as he can from this discussion?
-
Sure, Walt. You might as well not be a CT either. You at least accept some LN evidence, like the Backyard Photos.
I honestly can't understand how a thinking person can deny that at least two of the B.Y. photos are authentic.... Marina said that she took two BY photos....BUT.....There are now FOUR B.Y. photos.
And that fact ( that there are four photos tells me that someone was trying to make sure that they had the "incriminating" photos to frame Lee Oswald. I put incriminating in parenthesis because I don't believe the BY photos are incriminating ....They certainly don't show anything that is absolutely incriminating.... I believe they (133A &B ) are a very amateurish attempt to deceive the viewer into believing that the man in the photo was a rough and ready guerilla fighter..... But the photo is about as convincing as a carnival photo that shows the Pope as a jailbird in B&W stripes and a ball and chain.
-
Clearly you believe that a CT is something to be shunned. And that's exactly what the government has promoted. The government wants anybody who rejects the official US government position, that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone nut assassin, to be scorned and mocked.
But at this late date, and with all of the information that has surfaced , that position is no longer tenable .... And only a damned fool would continue to try to promote it.
Wrong. I accept, for example, that there was a conspiracy to kill President Lincoln because that is what the evidence proves. There is no such evidence in the JFK case. What I find amusing is that someone like Martin pontificates endlessly a theory like Oswald didn't come down the stairs but then refuses to acknowledge that he is a CTer. He won't accept the ONLY implication of his own conclusion. So take it up with Martin who refuses to acknowledge that he is a CTer. He is the one "shunning" you.
-
A “CT” is somebody who has a conspiracy theory, not somebody who looks at the evidence and finds it weak, circumstantial, and tainted.
Well by that definition I'm not a CT...... Because I do have a theory that LBJ and Hoover were the prime culprits....and I sure as hell don't find the "evidence" that been dumped on us at all convincing.....
I believe that the "evidence" of the spent shells and the hidden Carcano were nothing but stage props..... I'm 100% certain that the spent shells were not fired that day.
If Oswald did not commit this crime and was framed by the placement of evidence on the 6th floor, then by implication there must have been a conspiracy. If someone comes here endlessly suggesting that Oswald couldn't have done it by, for example, concluding that he didn't come down the stairs, then the only implication that can be drawn is that this person is a CTer. They don't have to espouse a specific nutty theory like they think "LBJ" or the "CIA" was behind the assassination. They merely have to conclude that Oswald didn't do it to be a CTer because there would have to be a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime etc. The evidence linking Oswald to the crime did not just magically appear. Suggesting that Oswald didn't or couldn't do it is not the end of the discussion as contrarians desire. That conclusion contains obvious implications for the involvement of others to commit the assassination and then frame Oswald. No matter how much folks like Martin run from the implications of their own baseless conclusions.
-
If Oswald did not commit this crime and was framed by the placement of evidence on the 6th floor, then by implication there must have been a conspiracy. If someone comes here endlessly suggesting that Oswald couldn't have done it by, for example, concluding that he didn't come down the stairs, then the only implication that can be drawn is that this person is a CTer. They don't have to espouse a specific nutty theory like they think "LBJ" or the "CIA" was behind the assassination. They merely have to conclude that Oswald didn't do it to be a CTer because there would have to be a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime etc. The evidence linking Oswald to the crime did not just magically appear. Suggesting that Oswald didn't or couldn't do it is not the end of the discussion as contrarians desire. That conclusion contains obvious implications for the involvement of others to commit the assassination and then frame Oswald. No matter how much folks like Martin run from the implications of their own baseless conclusions.
Congratulations, Richard. It looks like you're dipping your toe in the right waters and you're coming around. Now all you have to do is take the plunge.
Go to the photo of the reenactment done in Dealey by the FBI. I've posted it numerous times on here. You like to prowl on this site, so look for it and take a look at it. It's not just "buffs" like us [as you'd probably call us], but the FBI was in quite a quandary too. They looked at the autopsy photos [something none of us got to do until years later], put stickers on the JFK stand-in and scratched their heads.
"Wait a minute," they said. "How can the back entrance wound [shown as a sticker on the stand in] come out *above* that wound and go on?" It's physically impossible but clear as day in that photo. I'm sure they also read that the back wound had no exit wound when probed.
That's pretty much the essence of this case. It really doesn't matter if Walt thinks Oswald was cavorting with a Russian gangster in Cuba; it doesn't matter if someone thinks LBJ, Nixon, Ruby or all three were in on it. What matters is the "evidence" cooked up by the government would have easily been disputed and dismissed if Oswald had lived and had a competent lawyer during a trial.
And yes, it does matter if three shells [one bent] were found in the fake sniper's nest, yet an elaborate hiding of the gun supposedly took place, and he was unable to get down there in time like the government wants us to believe. It flies against all reason and comment sense.
-
What I find amusing is that someone like Martin pontificates endlessly a theory like Oswald didn't come down the stairs but then refuses to acknowledge that he is a CTer. He won't accept the ONLY implication of his own conclusion.
More strawman BS. How does that imply a conspiracy?
And why are you so invested in trying to make Martin a conspiracy theorist anyway?
-
Wrong. I accept, for example, that there was a conspiracy to kill President Lincoln because that is what the evidence proves. There is no such evidence in the JFK case. What I find amusing is that someone like Martin pontificates endlessly a theory like Oswald didn't come down the stairs but then refuses to acknowledge that he is a CTer. He won't accept the ONLY implication of his own conclusion. So take it up with Martin who refuses to acknowledge that he is a CTer. He is the one "shunning" you.
Look at that; the forum's clown is back and once again, obsessed with me as he clearly is, he drags me, yet again, into a conversation without any purpose.
What he still doesn't do is provide actual evidence that shows - as he claims - that Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired and/or that he did manage to come down the stairs unnoticed within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot.
What I find amusing is that someone like Martin pontificates endlessly a theory like Oswald didn't come down the stairs but then refuses to acknowledge that he is a CTer.
What I find highly amusing is that someone like Richard pontificates endlessly that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he did manage to come down the stairs unnoticed but refuses, for more than a month now, (or rather is totally incapable) to provide even a shred of evidence for either of those claims, thus only proving that the entire LN argument is based on nothing but assumptions and hot air.
-
The evidence linking Oswald to the crime did not just magically appear.
What evidence linking Oswald to the crime? The evidence you refuse to specify, or the evidence you continually lie about and misrepresent?
-
More strawman BS. How does that imply a conspiracy?
And why are you so invested in trying to make Martin a conspiracy theorist anyway?
And why are you so invested in trying to make Martin a conspiracy theorist anyway?
The poor fellow needs something to try and divert attention away from the fact that he can not produce a shred of evidence for his claims that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and/or that he managed to come down the stairs unnoticed, within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot.
He does not (and will never understand) that he has already lost the argument and will continue to live in his alternate reality.
-
If Oswald did not commit this crime and was framed by the placement of evidence on the 6th floor, then by implication there must have been a conspiracy. If someone comes here endlessly suggesting that Oswald couldn't have done it by, for example, concluding that he didn't come down the stairs, then the only implication that can be drawn is that this person is a CTer. They don't have to espouse a specific nutty theory like they think "LBJ" or the "CIA" was behind the assassination. They merely have to conclude that Oswald didn't do it to be a CTer because there would have to be a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime etc. The evidence linking Oswald to the crime did not just magically appear. Suggesting that Oswald didn't or couldn't do it is not the end of the discussion as contrarians desire. That conclusion contains obvious implications for the involvement of others to commit the assassination and then frame Oswald. No matter how much folks like Martin run from the implications of their own baseless conclusions.
They merely have to conclude that Oswald didn't do it to be a CTer because there would have to be a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime etc.
Hilarious! According to Richard, you don't have to have a theory about the conspiracy (if there was one) and you can still be a Conspiracy Theorist
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theorist
Conspiracy theorist noun
plural conspiracy theorists
Definition of conspiracy theorist
: a person who proposes or believes in a conspiracy theory
It's utterly beyond me how somebody can propose or believe in a conspiracy theory that he hasn't got. :D
-
BY pictures was PR to name LHO as DH
(https://i.postimg.cc/1zPB6WnF/327-BACK-OMEN.png)
BC
-
They merely have to conclude that Oswald didn't do it to be a CTer because there would have to be a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime etc.
Hilarious! According to Richard, you don't have to have a theory about the conspiracy (if there was one) and you can still be a Conspiracy Theorist
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theorist
Conspiracy theorist noun
plural conspiracy theorists
Definition of conspiracy theorist
: a person who proposes or believes in a conspiracy theory
It's utterly beyond me how somebody can propose or believe in a conspiracy theory that he hasn't got. :D
The following definitions say you only need to believe a conspiracy theory ("the idea that a group of people secretly worked together to cause a particular event") is afoot, not that you have to provide a specific theory.
- someone who believes in a conspiracy theory (= the idea that an event or situation is the result of a secret plan made by powerful people)
- One who believes in, follows, or advances a conspiracy theory.
And this certainly sums up you and Iacoletti, with your aversion to practically-all LN evidence, LN books/websites, the LN findings of the WC, most of the LN work done by the FBI, the HSCA finding that the shots that struck JFK/JBC were fired from the SN by Oswald, etc.:
"A conspiracy theory is not the same as a conspiracy; instead, it refers
to a hypothesized conspiracy with specific characteristics, such as an
opposition to the mainstream consensus among those people (such as
scientists or historians) who are qualified to evaluate its accuracy."
-
The following definitions say you only need to believe a conspiracy theory ("the idea that a group of people secretly worked together to cause a particular event") is afoot, not that you have to provide a specific theory.
- someone who believes in a conspiracy theory (= the idea that an event or situation is the result of a secret plan made by powerful people)
- One who believes in, follows, or advances a conspiracy theory.
And this certainly sums up you and Iacoletti, with your aversion to practically-all LN evidence, LN books/websites, the LN findings of the WC, most of the LN work done by the FBI, the HSCA finding that the shots that struck JFK/JBC were fired from the SN by Oswald, etc.:
"A conspiracy theory is not the same as a conspiracy; instead, it refers
to a hypothesized conspiracy with specific characteristics, such as an
opposition to the mainstream consensus among those people (such as
scientists or historians) who are qualified to evaluate its accuracy."
This is just plain stupid. It's a logical conclusion that if Oswald wasn't the lone gunman, there must have been a conspiracy. By this definition everybody who does not believe or simply doubts that Oswald was the lone gunman would be a CT. The fact that they do not propose, support or even believe in a particular theory somehow doesn't matter. That's wacky!
The following definitions say you only need to believe a conspiracy theory ("the idea that a group of people secretly worked together to cause a particular event") is afoot, not that you have to provide a specific theory.
- someone who believes in a conspiracy theory (= the idea that an event or situation is the result of a secret plan made by powerful people)
- One who believes in, follows, or advances a conspiracy theory.
Hilarious.
I'm not sure where you got those definitions but I suggest you read them again before you say something else stupid.
You may not have noticed it but they clearly state that you have to believe in, follow or advance a conspiracy theory.
So, pray tell, in which theory do I believe in or have I ever followed or advanced?
And this certainly sums up you and Iacoletti, with your aversion to practically-all LN evidence, LN books/websites, the LN findings of the WC, most of the LN work done by the FBI, the HSCA finding that the shots that struck JFK/JBC were fired from the SN by Oswald, etc.:
"A conspiracy theory is not the same as a conspiracy; instead, it refers
to a hypothesized conspiracy with specific characteristics, such as an
opposition to the mainstream consensus among those people (such as
scientists or historians) who are qualified to evaluate its accuracy."
your aversion to practically-all LN evidence,
Oh please, stop whining! This is just a variation of the idiotic "your standard of evidence is too high" argument all over again.
I have an aversion to all the BS assumptions and speculations the LNs call evidence as well as the weakness of their arguments when they try to attach far more evidentiary value to a piece of evidence than is really there.
Along the same lines, I have a similar aversion to most CT arguments when they are not supported by conclusive evidence.
"A conspiracy theory is not the same as a conspiracy; instead, it refers to a hypothesized conspiracy with specific characteristics, such as an opposition to the mainstream consensus among those people (such as scientists or historians) who are qualified to evaluate its accuracy."
Pathetic. The classic appeal to authority fallacy again.... It's the biggest demonstration there is that somebody hasn't got a mind of his own and is happy to take anything they tell him at face value (that would be you, Jerry)
Translation; you have to believe what we say because we say it, no matter how incredible and unsupported by evidence it is what we say. If you disagree with us, you are a CT....
Counter argument; you can be an expert as much as you like, but if you have an agenda or get questionable evidence to work with (or both) your conclusions are going to be equally questionable.
The only book I have ever read about the Kennedy case is the WC report. Prior to reading it, I was just one more of those shallow minds who didn't give Oswald's alleged guilt a second thought. Once I finished reading the book it was beyond clear to me that whatever really happened on 11/22/63 it wasn't what the WC reported. The question for me was not if Oswald was innocent or if there had been a conspiracy. I came away from reading the report wondering if they simply wrapped this case around Oswald regardless of his guilt or innocence.
-
Jerry, how do you leap from “aversion to LN evidence” (which is all either not evidence at all, or is weak, circumstantial, and tainted in some way) to “a group of people secretly worked together to cause a particular event“?
-
Jerry, how do you leap from “aversion to LN evidence” (which is all either not evidence at all, or is weak, circumstantial, and tainted in some way) to “a group of people secretly worked together to cause a particular event“?
How do you get from LNers presenting what they see as substantial evidence accepted by a Presidential Commission, a Select Committee, the Ramsey Panel, federal agencies, police, authors like Vincent Bugliosi and TV shows like NOVA and Frontline to: "You promote the official fantasy narrative like it’s gospel."?
-
I take that to mean that you can’t explain how you make that giant leap.
And it’s a fantasy narrative no matter who “accepts” it.
-
Oswald created his own mess and got what he deserved
(https://i.postimg.cc/fRh660s9/328-OMEN-PROPHECY.png)
billchapman_hunter of trolls_you_are_next
(https://i.postimg.cc/G3kVPQDn/YELLOW.png)
-
I take that to mean that you can’t explain how you make that giant leap.
Any explanation I would offer would be something "you would take to mean". Not interested in feeding the Troll.
I would hardly call it a "giant leap" that someone who rejects nearly all the LN evidence (at times, claiming some covert element could have been forging or manipulating certain items) can't therefore be a JFK Conspiracy Theorist?
Well gee, I'm not an LNer because I'm not promoting a specific LN Theory. I'm just an honest person who sees the evidence for what it is. I'm a "Skeptic" when it comes to weak CT claims. At the same time, I acknowledge the agencies did some self-serving coverup, such as the Hosty Note being destroyed.
-
Any explanation I would offer would be something "you would take to mean". Not interested in feeding the Troll.
I would hardly call it a "giant leap" that someone who rejects nearly all the LN evidence (at times, claiming some covert element could have been forging or manipulating certain items) can't therefore be a JFK Conspiracy Theorist?
Well gee, I'm not an LNer because I'm not promoting a specific LN Theory. I'm just an honest person who sees the evidence for what it is. I'm a "Skeptic" when it comes to weak CT claims. At the same time, I acknowledge the agencies did some self-serving coverup, such as the Hosty Note being destroyed.
"Official fantasy narrative." This comes from a supposed agnostic, someone who says they don't know what happened. But he knows that the "official" story is a fantasy. And his counter explanation is nowhere to be found. He won't posit one.
In any case, it's been more than half a century since the event. Multiple government investigations by multiple generations of Americans and multiple news media investigations by multiple generations of reporters and journalists. Add to the work of historians and others who studied the lives of the major figures at that time. Hoover, LBJ et cetera. And they found nothing that supports this big "C" conspiracy (that the agnostics never challenge).
But all of this is simply dismissed out of hand as "official fantasy narrative."
Meanwhile, the conspiracy narrative over this time expands and gets more complicated. More people involved in either the event or the coverup as they jam this new information into their preconceived conspiracy.
-
I would hardly call it a "giant leap" that someone who rejects nearly all the LN evidence (at times, claiming some covert element could have been forging or manipulating certain items) can't therefore be a JFK Conspiracy Theorist?
Who claimed that some covert element could have been forging or manipulating certain items? And how does that translate to multiple people anyway?
Well gee, I'm not an LNer because I'm not promoting a specific LN Theory. I'm just an honest person who sees the evidence for what it is.
If you really saw the evidence for what it is, you wouldn’t be the slightest bit convinced by it.
I'm a "Skeptic" when it comes to weak CT claims. At the same time, I acknowledge the agencies did some self-serving coverup, such as the Hosty Note being destroyed.
Sounds like a conspiracy theory.
-
"Official fantasy narrative." This comes from a supposed agnostic, someone who says they don't know what happened. But he knows that the "official" story is a fantasy.
Even if it happened to be correct, it’s still a fantasy because it relies on unsubstantiated assertions and conjecture.
And his counter explanation is nowhere to be found. He won't posit one.
You make it sound like inventing fantasy narratives is a good thing. Why invent another one when the first one isn’t even demonstrable? Just so you can focus on that instead of justifying your own? Yes, if you’re honest.
In any case, it's been more than half a century since the event. Multiple government investigations by multiple generations of Americans and multiple news media investigations by multiple generations of reporters and journalists.
False appeal to authority. They all relied on the same bogus set of assumptions and conjecture and the same weak and inauthenticatable evidence.
Meanwhile, the conspiracy narrative over this time expands and gets more complicated. More people involved in either the event or the coverup as they jam this new information into their preconceived conspiracy.
There is no “the conspiracy narrative”.
-
Any explanation I would offer would be something "you would take to mean". Not interested in feeding the Troll.
I would hardly call it a "giant leap" that someone who rejects nearly all the LN evidence (at times, claiming some covert element could have been forging or manipulating certain items) can't therefore be a JFK Conspiracy Theorist?
Well gee, I'm not an LNer because I'm not promoting a specific LN Theory. I'm just an honest person who sees the evidence for what it is. I'm a "Skeptic" when it comes to weak CT claims. At the same time, I acknowledge the agencies did some self-serving coverup, such as the Hosty Note being destroyed.
I'm not an LNer because I'm not promoting a specific LN Theory.
Such delusion.... all you do is promote the WC narrative. That's the only LN theory there is. There might be slight differences on minor points between the opinions of individual LNs, but at the end of the day there is only one gospel for you guys.
I'm just an honest person who sees the evidence for what it is.
Great. So am I, and I am sure, so is John as well. And as honest men we can disagree, can't we, so what exactly is your problem again?
Oh, wait... is your honesty perhaps of the kind that whatever you see in the evidence must be the truth and no other truly honest person can see anything else? Because that's what it frequently looks like when I read your posts...
I'm a "Skeptic" when it comes to weak CT claims.
And I am a skeptic when it comes to weak LN claims, so again, what's your problem exactly?
At the same time, I acknowledge the agencies did some self-serving coverup, such as the Hosty Note being destroyed.
And, at the same time, I acknowledge that the BY photos are most likely authentic (they just don't prove what the LNs claim they do) and I accept that Oswald most likely isn't the innocent bystander who just got caught up in this thing, as some CT believe.
-
With all these diversions going on, let's not forget that Richard Smith still hasn't presented even a shred of evidence for his claims that Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired and that he managed to go down the stairs, within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot, without being noticed by anybody.
As this is just about the biggest crux of the Kennedy assassination and the Oswald lone gunman scenario, one would expect that after nearly six decades somebody somewhere would be able to provide this basic evidence.
-
With all these diversions going on, let's not forget that Richard Smith still hasn't presented even a shred of evidence for his claims that Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired and that he managed to go down the stairs, within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot, without being noticed by anybody.
As this is just about the biggest crux of the Kennedy assassination and the Oswald lone gunman scenario, one would expect that after nearly six decades somebody somewhere would be able to provide this basic evidence.
Such a weak deflection. Run, Martin, run. The evidence of Oswald's presence on the 6th floor has been documented in several investigations. It has been widely known and available to the public for six decades. You are aware of that evidence. There is no need for me or anyone else to go down that rabbit hole with a contrarian like yourself once again. The question under discussion is whether you believe Oswald could be the assassin given your conclusion that he didn't come down the stairs. The only apparent way from him to have been on the 6th floor at the moment of the assassination and in the 2nd floor lunchroom in time to encounter Baker. You have concluded that this was not possible, but have yet to confirm that you accept the only possible impliciation of YOUR conclusion that Oswald is innocent.
So once again, do you believe Oswald is innocent because he didn't come down the stairs or not? You have made this claime and thus far refused to answer this simple question. A violation of forum rules.
-
Such a weak deflection. Run, Martin, run. The evidence of Oswald's presence on the 6th floor has been documented in several investigations. It has been widely known and available to the public for six decades. You are aware of that evidence. There is no need for me or anyone else to go down that rabbit hole with a contrarian like yourself once again. The question under discussion is whether you believe Oswald could be the assassin given your conclusion that he didn't come down the stairs. The only apparent way from him to have been on the 6th floor at the moment of the assassination and in the 2nd floor lunchroom in time to encounter Baker. You have concluded that this was not possible, but have yet to confirm that you accept the only possible impliciation of YOUR conclusion that Oswald is innocent.
So once again, do you believe Oswald is innocent because he didn't come down the stairs or not? You have made this claime and thus far refused to answer this simple question. A violation of forum rules.
Hilarious... the guy who claims that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he managed to go down the stairs unnoticed within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot can and will not provide a shred of proof to support those claims.
The evidence of Oswald's presence on the 6th floor has been documented in several investigations. It has been widely known and available to the public for six decades. You are aware of that evidence. There is no need for me or anyone else to go down that rabbit hole with a contrarian like yourself once again.
So weak.... If that evidence is widely known and available for decades, it should be easy for you to present it here. Yet, you don't for one simple reason; you can't because there is no such evidence.
The only apparent way from him to have been on the 6th floor at the moment of the assassination and in the 2nd floor lunchroom in time to encounter Baker. You have concluded that this was not possible, but have yet to confirm that you accept the only possible impliciation of YOUR conclusion that Oswald is innocent.
So superficial? Explain how Oswald not being the shooter and not coming down the stairs implies exclusively that he was innocent?
So once again, do you believe Oswald is innocent because he didn't come down the stairs or not? You have made this claime and thus far refused to answer this simple question. A violation of forum rules.
If not answering a question is a violation of forum rules, then you have been guilty of violating that rule for weeks on end now. Even including in this post where you once again refuse to answer the question I have been asking from you since August.
As for me not answering your question, that's utter BS. That question has been answered a number of times in this thread. But I'll gladly answer it again;
So once again, do you believe Oswald is innocent because he didn't come down the stairs or not?
No. Oswald not coming down the stairs tells me nothing about his innocence or guilt. It might tell me something about him being on the 6th floor or not, when the shots were fired, but that's it.
-
Hilarious... the guy who claims that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he managed to go down the stairs unnoticed within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot can and will not provide a shred of proof to support those claims.
The evidence of Oswald's presence on the 6th floor has been documented in several investigations. It has been widely known and available to the public for six decades. You are aware of that evidence. There is no need for me or anyone else to go down that rabbit hole with a contrarian like yourself once again.
So weak.... If that evidence is widely known and available for decades, it should be easy for you to present it here. Yet, you don't for one simple reason; you can't because there is no such evidence.
The only apparent way from him to have been on the 6th floor at the moment of the assassination and in the 2nd floor lunchroom in time to encounter Baker. You have concluded that this was not possible, but have yet to confirm that you accept the only possible impliciation of YOUR conclusion that Oswald is innocent.
So superficial? Explain how Oswald not being the shooter and not coming down the stairs implies exclusively that he was innocent?
So once again, do you believe Oswald is innocent because he didn't come down the stairs or not? You have made this claime and thus far refused to answer this simple question. A violation of forum rules.
If not answering a question is a violation of forum rules, then you have been guilty of violating that rule for weeks on end now. Even including in this post where you once again refuse to answer the question I have been asking from you since August.
As for me not answering your question, that's utter BS. That question has been answered a number of times in this thread. But I'll gladly answer it again;
So once again, do you believe Oswald is innocent because he didn't come down the stairs or not?
No. Oswald not coming down the stairs tells me nothing about his innocence or guilt. It might tell me something about him being on the 6th floor or not, when the shots were fired, but that's it.
I've answered your question multiple times. Here it is again. The evidence of Oswald's presence on the 6th floor has been known and widely available from many sources for six decades. We have discussed it many times. You already know that evidence. You don't accept it. There is no reason to go down that rabbit hole over and over again to provide to deflect the issue to your bizarre contrarian responses on that topic. You have reached a conclusion that Oswald didn't come down the stairs after the assassination but refuse to confirm that you accept the implications of YOUR own conclusion.
Here is the simple question for you once again. Do you believe Oswald is innocent based on your conclusion that he didn't come down the stairs from the 6th floor or not? How does Oswald commit the assassination from the 6th floor if he couldn't have been there according to you because the ONLY way to get to the 2nd floor from the 6th floor in the known timeframe is down those stairs? The ones you concluded he didn't come down. Why such a mighty struggle against YOUR own conclusion? Why not just say that it is your conclusion that Oswald did not assassinate JFK because you have concluded that he didn't come down the stairs? Why is that so hard? It's YOUR conclusion.
-
I've answered your question multiple times. Here it is again. The evidence of Oswald's presence on the 6th floor has been known and widely available from many sources for six decades. We have discussed it many times. You already know that evidence. You don't accept it. There is no reason to go down that rabbit hole over and over again to provide to deflect the issue to your bizarre contrarian responses on that topic. You have reached a conclusion that Oswald didn't come down the stairs after the assassination but refuse to confirm that you accept the implications of YOUR own conclusion.
Here is the simple question for you once again. Do you believe Oswald is innocent based on your conclusion that he didn't come down the stairs from the 6th floor or not? How does Oswald commit the assassination from the 6th floor if he couldn't have been there according to you because the ONLY way to get to the 2nd floor from the 6th floor in the known timeframe is down those stairs? The ones you concluded he didn't come down. Why such a mighty struggle against YOUR own conclusion? Why not just say that it is your conclusion that Oswald did not assassinate JFK because you have concluded that he didn't come down the stairs? Why is that so hard? It's YOUR conclusion.
I've answered your question multiple times. Here it is again. The evidence of Oswald's presence on the 6th floor has been known and widely available from many sources for six decades. We have discussed it many times. You already know that evidence. You don't accept it. There is no reason to go down that rabbit hole over and over again to provide to deflect the issue to your bizarre contrarian responses on that topic.
That's not an answer to my question. It's an evasion of answering my question. I am asking you what evidence (not assumption) proves that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he went down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot. You have not provided that evidence and have instead, by way of a total cop out, stated that the evidence is widely known and available, which is an outright lie as, to my knowledge, no such evidence exists. Don't confuse assumptions with actual evidence!
Why are you having such difficulty answering my question? You claim that there is evidence that proves that Oswald was on 6th floor when the shots were fired, so why not simply produce it.
The only reason for not producing it is, imo, that there either is no such evidence or that you understand that whatever evidence you believe there is doesn't really prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired after all. Which of the two it is, doesn't really matter. As long as you don't produce the evidence your claims lack all credibility! It is in fact an admission that there is no credible evidence that proves Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired.
Do you believe Oswald is innocent based on your conclusion that he didn't come down the stairs from the 6th floor or not?
Just answered, yet again, in my previous post. It's not my problem that you can't read or understand what you read.
How does Oswald commit the assassination from the 6th floor if he couldn't have been there
You seem confused. That's not the same question as the one you have been asking. I am truly amazed that you would ask such a pathetic rhetorical question.
-
Such a weak deflection. Run, Martin, run. The evidence of Oswald's presence on the 6th floor has been documented in several investigations.
BS: You are just unable to answer the question.
So once again, do you believe Oswald is innocent because he didn't come down the stairs or not? You have made this claime and thus far refused to answer this simple question. A violation of forum rules.
More BS: what forum rule? If there was such a rule then you’re breaking it by not answering the questions put to you.
-
I've answered your question multiple times. Here it is again. The evidence of Oswald's presence on the 6th floor has been known and widely available from many sources for six decades. We have discussed it many times. You already know that evidence. You don't accept it. There is no reason to go down that rabbit hole over and over again to provide to deflect the issue to your bizarre contrarian responses on that topic.
That's not an answer to my question. It's an evasion of answering my question. I am asking you what evidence (not assumption) proves that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he went down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot. You have not provided that evidence and have instead, by way of a total cop out, stated that the evidence is widely known and available, which is an outright lie as, to my knowledge, no such evidence exists. Don't confuse assumptions with actual evidence!
Why are you having such difficulty answering my question? You claim that there is evidence that proves that Oswald was on 6th floor when the shots were fired, so why not simply produce it.
The only reason for not producing it is, imo, that there either is no such evidence or that you understand that whatever evidence you believe there is doesn't really prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired after all. Which of the two it is, doesn't really matter. As long as you don't produce the evidence your claims lack all credibility! It is in fact an admission that there is no credible evidence that proves Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired.
Do you believe Oswald is innocent based on your conclusion that he didn't come down the stairs from the 6th floor or not?
Just answered, yet again, in my previous post. It's not my problem that you can't read or understand what you read.
How does Oswald commit the assassination from the 6th floor if he couldn't have been there
You seem confused. That's not the same question as the one you have been asking. I am truly amazed that you would ask such a pathetic rhetorical question.
Unreal. An endless loop. To summarize, Martin concluded that Oswald didn't come down the stairs after the assassination based upon his analysis of witness testimony. He stated this as a fact (i.e. Oswald didn't come down the stairs). Those stairs are the only possible means for Oswald to have made it from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor lunchroom in time to encounter Baker after the assassination. Martin, however, will not confirm that he accepts the ONLY possible implication of his own conclusion that Oswald didn't come down the stairs (i.e. Oswald couldn't be the assassin). Instead he tries to deflect this back to the "evidence" that Oswald was on the 6th floor. Something that has been documented for six decades. Evidence that he is aware of and that there is nothing to add by myself or anyone else. Why he refuses to embrace the only possible implication of his own conclusion is an insight into the bizarre mindset of the contrarian. Their entire purpose is to cast doubt on Oswald's guilt. They do this without any consideration of the implications of their own nutty theories having any validity. It is very amusing.
-
Unreal. An endless loop. To summarize, Martin concluded that Oswald didn't come down the stairs after the assassination based upon his analysis of witness testimony. He stated this as a fact (i.e. Oswald didn't come down the stairs). Those stairs are the only possible means for Oswald to have made it from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor lunchroom in time to encounter Baker after the assassination. Martin, however, will not confirm that he accepts the ONLY possible implication of his own conclusion that Oswald didn't come down the stairs (i.e. Oswald couldn't be the assassin). Instead he tries to deflect this back to the "evidence" that Oswald was on the 6th floor. Something that has been documented for six decades. Evidence that he is aware of and that there is nothing to add by myself or anyone else. Why he refuses to embrace the only possible implication of his own conclusion is an insight into the bizarre mindset of the contrarian. Their entire purpose is to cast doubt on Oswald's guilt. They do this without any consideration of the implications of their own nutty theories having any validity. It is very amusing.
And Richard continues to embarras himself with every post he writes. Still desperately trying to divert the discussion away from having to provide the answer to the questions I have been asking for months.
Why is it that Richard is trying so desperately to stay away from providing this so-called evidence "that has been documented for six decades"? The most likely scenario is that he understands that no such evidence actually exists and has ever existed and that he is confusing actual real evidence with the misrepresentations, assumptions and unsupported claims and conclusions presented to us in Chapter 4 of the WC Report.
Richard probably also understands that even if the rifle found at the TSBD is the same one as Klein's allegedly shipped to Oswald's P.O. box and even if that rifle was fired that day (which was never established), it still does not even begin to prove that Oswald himself was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. To conclude that he was would be nothing more than a superficial assumption!
That's why Richard prefers to embarras himself on a daily basis rather than exposing his own stupidy in believing that fairytale!
No matter how much Richard tries to make this about me, the mere fact that he refuses to back up his claims with the evidence I have asked for is the best evidence of the fact that this elusive evidence simply doesn't exist. If it did exist, and showed what Richard claims it does, he has no reason to do his month long song and dance act.
-
And Richard continues to embarras himself with every post he writes. Still desperately trying to divert the discussion away from having to provide the answer to the questions I have been asking for months.
Why is it that Richard is trying so desperately to stay away from providing this so-called evidence "that has been documented for six decades". The most likely scenario is that Richard understands that no such evidence actually exists or has ever existed and that he is confusing actual real evidence with the misrepresentations, assumptions and unsupported claims and conclusions presented to us in Chapter 4 of the WC Report.
Richard probably understands that even if the rifle found at the TSBD is the same one as Klein's allegedly shipped to Oswald's P.O. box and even if that rifle was fired that day (which was never established) than it still does not even begin to prove that Oswald himself was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. To conclude that he was would be a superficial assumption!
That's why Richard prefers to embarras himself on a daily basis rather than exposing his own stupidy in believing that fairytale!
No matter how much Richard tries to make this about me, the mere fact that he refuses to back up his claims with the evidence I have asked for is the best evidence of the fact that this elusive evidence simply doesn't exist. If it did exist, and showed what Richard claims it does, he has no reason to do his month long song and dance act.
So many words and endless personal commentary, but again no answer to the simple question about YOUR conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs." We have reached an impasse.
-
So many words and endless personal commentary, but again no answer to the simple question about YOUR conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs." We have reached an impasse.
We have reached an impasse.
No we haven't. What we are dealing with here is your complete failure and/or unwillingness to provide evidence to support the claims you have made.
As for the simple answer to your question. It has been given a number of times already, but here it is again;
The preponderance of evidence clearly supports the conclusion that Oswald couldn't have come down the stairs, within 75 seconds after the last shot, and not be noticed. That's my opinion and it's based on the available evidence. You know, the evidence you don't want to discuss!
You just pretend we somehow have reached an impasse, so you can avoid providing the evidence for your claims that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he managed to go down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds of the last shot.
Chapter 4 of your bible, the WC Report, deals with the stairs matter simply by ignoring it completely and only makes assumptions not justified by the available evidence about Oswald being on the 6th floor. You, on the other hand, have claimed that Oswald was in fact on the 6th floor and did come down the stairs unnoticed.
You have now shown us, beyond doubt, that your claim was not only not credible but also based on no evidence whatsoever. The only reasonable conclusion has to be that you simply believe that Oswald was on the 6th floor based not on actual evidence but simply because you want him to be, regardless of the facts.
-
As Richard Smith is still refusing (or perhaps simply unable) to produce any credible evidence for his claims that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and managed to go down the stairs unnoticed, within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot, I will keep this thread on the first page until either Richard Smith produces the evidence that support his claims or admits that he hasn't got such supporting evidence.
-
“Richard” never produces any evidence. But I guarantee you that he will pop up again somewhere else like a whack-a-mole and trot out all the same false and unsubstantiated claims all over again.
-
Bump, for “Richard”.
Still waiting…
-
Bump, for “Richard”.
Still waiting…
I don't know what is worse. Making claims, as Richard does, and then being unable to produce any evidence to support them or to hide behind Chapter 4 of the WC Report and even being unable to defend the so-called "evidence" in the Report.
-
I've really gotten into the heads of the contrarians who have desperately tried to avoid admitting that they are CTers. Martin really blew that absurd pretext with his conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs." Now he is angry after being exposed because that silly game is over. Checkmate. Find a new hobby.
-
Garner:"It was total confusion," she said. "The Dallas police, FBI, Secret Service were coming up the stairs, in the elevators, in all the offices. The news media and workers and outsiders were going everywhere." B. Ernest
Yeah, nothing there to distract anybody
FFS
Anyway, he used the bannister, not the stairs
(https://i.postimg.cc/pdgLXpHg/Slither-spot.png)
-
I've really gotten into the heads of the contrarians who have desperately tried to avoid admitting that they are CTers. Martin really blew that absurd pretext with his conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs." Now he is angry after being exposed because that silly game is over. Checkmate. Find a new hobby.
No matter how much you want people to believe this BS, the fact is that all your diversions and pathetic comments can no longer disguise that you can not produce a shred of credible evidence for your silly claims that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and managed to go down he stairs unnoticed within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot. The mere fact that you have been running away from providing the evidence you claim exists for some two months now says it all. Run "Richard" run.... as fast as you can!
You have exposed yourself as a superficial little man who just believes whatever he is told no matter if it makes sense or not and no matter if there is evidence for it or not. No wonder that you are a die hard Trump supporter.
Btw.... I'm not angry. I only feel pity for you. And if you want to call me a CT, feel free to do so. Except you, nobody cares! Thumb1:
-
Here is another question that “Richard” will never answer:
How is the “Oswald didn’t come down the stairs” conclusion a conspiracy theory?
-
No matter how much you want people to believe this BS, the fact is that all your diversions and pathetic comments can no longer disguise that you can not produce a shred of credible evidence for your silly claims that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and managed to go down he stairs unnoticed within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot. The mere fact that you have been running away from providing the evidence you claim exits for some two months now says it all. Run "Richard" run.... as fast as you can!
You have exposed yourself as a superficial little man who just believes whatever he is told no matter if it makes sense or not and no matter if there is evidence for it or not. No wonder that you are a die hard Trump supporter.
Btw.... I'm not angry. I only feel pity for you. And if you want to call me a CT, feel free to do so. Except you, nobody cares! Thumb1:
This is comedy gold. One of my favorite posts on this forum. Keep in mind Martin is not angry about being exposed as a CTer. He even says so! HA HA HA. I await his next commentary with anticipation. I bet it doesn't answer how Oswald could have still been the assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs." A conclusion of innocence.
-
This is comedy gold. One of my favorite posts on this forum. Keep in mind Martin is not angry about being exposed as a CTer. He even says so! HA HA HA. I await his next commentary with anticipation. I bet it doesn't answer how Oswald could have still been the assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs." A conclusion of innocence.
I bet it doesn't answer how Oswald could have still been the assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs."
Already answered, but then you're not really interested in an answer.... you're just looking for a diversion, right?
A far better question is the one you are running from as fast as you can; How could Oswald have been the assassin when you can't even provide a shred of credible evidence that he was actually on the 6th floor when the shots were fired?
A conclusion of innocence.
A total display of ignorance and stupidity!
You can keep on doing your song and dance act as much as you want, but the bottom line is that you can not provide any credible evidence for your claims that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he managed to go down the stairs unnoticed within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot.
-
This is comedy gold. One of my favorite posts on this forum. Keep in mind Martin is not angry about being exposed as a CTer. He even says so! HA HA HA. I await his next commentary with anticipation. I bet it doesn't answer how Oswald could have still been the assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs." A conclusion of innocence.
Quite obviously you believe that being a CT is the lowest form of humanity.... But what It's that actually says is...You're an insufferable moron. If it weren't for people( CT's) who were smart enough and courageous enough to see through the official government's proclamation that the earth was flat, we'd still be afraid to try to cross the ocean.
Clearly Mr "smith" ...you are a gutless moron.
-
Quite obviously you believe that being a CT is the lowest form of humanity.... But what It's that actually says is...You're an insufferable moron. If it weren't for people( CT's) who were smart enough and courageous enough to see through the official government's proclamation that the earth was flat, we'd still be afraid to try to cross the ocean.
Clearly Mr "smith" ...you are a gutless moron.
Walt, surely you heard. New rules. Nobody on this Forum is a CT. Including you.
But LNers are stuck being LNers because they can't be "objective" or "think independently".
-
Quite obviously you believe that being a CT is the lowest form of humanity.... But what It's that actually says is...You're an insufferable moron. If it weren't for people( CT's) who were smart enough and courageous enough to see through the official government's proclamation that the earth was flat, we'd still be afraid to try to cross the ocean.
Clearly Mr "smith" ...you are a gutless moron.
Again, take it up with Martin. He is the one who refuses to acknowledge that he is a CTer even though he thinks Oswald "didn't come down the stairs." He must believe there is something wrong with admitting to being a CTer since he has a childish tantrum each time it is pointed out that the only possible implication of his nutty conclusion is that he is a CTer. I have no problem with being a CTer when there is evidence of a conspiracy. There was, for example, a conspiracy to assassinate President Lincoln.
-
Again, take it up with Martin. He is the one who refuses to acknowledge that he is a CTer even though he thinks Oswald "didn't come down the stairs." He must believe there is something wrong with admitting to being a CTer since he has a childish tantrum each time it is pointed out that the only possible implication of his nutty conclusion is that he is a CTer. I have no problem with being a CTer when there is evidence of a conspiracy. There was, for example, a conspiracy to assassinate President Lincoln.
Here is another question that “Richard” will never answer:
How is the “Oswald didn’t come down the stairs” conclusion a conspiracy theory?
Btw, where is the evidence for your pathetic claims that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he managed to come down the stairs unnoticed within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot?
You are the first LN I know who has managed to demonstrate clearly that there is no evidence whatsoever for Oswald being on the 6th floor when the shots were fired Thumb1:
-
Btw, where is the evidence for your pathetic claims that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he managed to come down the stairs unnoticed within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot?
You are the first LN I know who has managed to demonstrate clearly that there is no evidence whatsoever for Oswald being on the 6th floor when the shots were fired Thumb1:
Again, we have gone through this a million times. The DPD and WC conducted an extensive investigation following the assassination. The WC outlined the evidence linking Oswald to this crime. I have nothing to add to that evidence. It supports the conclusion that Oswald assassinated JFK from the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30PM on 11.22.63. That evidence has been available for nearly six decades. You are aware of that evidence. So why keep asking me about "my" evidence? Do you think I have evidence that was unavailable to the WC? This isn't just my "claim" but that of the official investigation by federal and state law enforcement agencies. That is the evidence. What a silly deflection. We know that if the evidence places Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 and in the 2nd floor lunchroom a few minutes later that he MUST have used the stairs and done so unnoticed because that was the ONLY means for him to have done so. The best evidence that a thing is possible is that it happened. Your subjective interpretations of the witness description of events down to the exact second to fit your desired narrative is weak sauce to rebut the WC's evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor. But if you think this has validity, contact the NY Times to let them know that you have exonerated Oswald with your brilliance.
You have concluded that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" from the 6th floor following the assassination. The only possible implication to be drawn from YOUR conclusion is that Oswald was not the assassin because he couldn't have been on the 6th floor when the shots were fired if he "didn't come down the stairs" to the 2nd floor to encounter Baker a few minutes later. So confirm for us that your position is that Oswald must be innocent and that the documented WC evidence that links him to this crime was a product of conspiracy to frame him. That should be easy because there is no other implication to be drawn from YOUR own conclusion. Why struggle so mightily against your own conclusion? Why do you hold JFK CTers in such low regard as to refuse to admit that you are one while peddling a conclusion that requires a conspiracy?
-
Again, we have gone through this a million times. The DPD and WC conducted an extensive investigation following the assassination. The WC outlined the evidence linking Oswald to this crime. I have nothing to add to that evidence. It supports the conclusion that Oswald assassinated JFK from the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30PM on 11.22.63. That evidence has been available for nearly six decades. You are aware of that evidence. So why keep asking me about "my" evidence? Do you think I have evidence that was unavailable to the WC? This isn't just my "claim" but that of the official investigation by federal and state law enforcement agencies. That is the evidence. What a silly deflection. We know that if the evidence places Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 and in the 2nd floor lunchroom a few minutes later that he MUST have used the stairs and done so unnoticed because that was the ONLY means for him to have done so. The best evidence that a thing is possible is that it happened. Your subjective interpretations of the witness description of events down to the exact second to fit your desired narrative is weak sauce to rebut the WC's evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor. But if you think this has validity, contact the NY Times to let them know that you have exonerated Oswald with your brilliance.
You have concluded that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" from the 6th floor following the assassination. The only possible implication to be drawn from YOUR conclusion is that Oswald was not the assassin because he couldn't have been on the 6th floor when the shots were fired if he "didn't come down the stairs" to the 2nd floor to encounter Baker a few minutes later. So confirm for us that your position is that Oswald must be innocent and that the documented WC evidence that links him to this crime was a product of conspiracy to frame him. That should be easy because there is no other implication to be drawn from YOUR own conclusion. Why struggle so mightily against your own conclusion? Why do you hold JFK CTers in such low regard as to refuse to admit that you are one while peddling a conclusion that requires a conspiracy?
Wow, hang on... YOU claimed that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he came down the stairs unnoticed. You said that the evidence showed that. I asked you for that evidence.
Now you hide behind the WC, but they never provided any evidence that showed that Oswald was on the 6th floor and/or came down the stairs. They just concluded, based on highly dubious assumptions that Oswald killed Kennedy and never presented any evidence for him being on the 6th floor and/or coming down the stairs unnoticed. In fact, they simply ignored all of it; "We say he killed Kennedy, so he must of been on the 6th floor and must have come down the stairs". That was it!
This is exactly what I have been saying all along; your can not support your claims that Oswald was on the 6th floor and/or that he came down the stairs with evidence, because it simply doesn't exist. Will you ever learn that assumptions are not evidence?
The DPD and WC conducted an extensive investigation following the assassination.
Could you keep a straight face when you wrote this BS?
The WC outlined the evidence linking Oswald to this crime.
Nope. They outlined a whole bunch of selfserving assumptions that were supposed to link highly questionable pieces of evidence together and failed to notice or ignored that those pieces of evidence did not even support their assumptions and conclusions.
I have nothing to add to that evidence.
What evidence? The WC narrative? Well, let's examine it, shall we?
According to some FBI expert, Oswald wrote a Kleins' order form for a rifle in early 1963. We assume he ordered that rifle for himself, despite the fact that the order form has the name Hidell on it. Although there are no shipping documents and/or proof that Oswald received and collected that rifle, we assume that he must have received it, because Waldman said that a handwritten circle on Waldman 7 around the letters "PP" means it was sent. Oswald was photographed holding a rifle and although the experts disagree we nevertheless assume that it was the same rifle that was ordered from Kleins'. Without any credible evidence we also assume that Oswald used this rifle to fire a shot at General Walker. Obviously we ignore Walker's complaint about the bullet now in evidence (the only link to the rifle) not being the bullet the DPD took out of the wall of his home.
We then assume that Oswald took this rifle, he had just used for an attempted murder, on public transport to New Orleans. We "know" this because his wife said he sat on the stairs of the back porch after dark with a rifle. The next thing we assume is that Oswald wrapped that rifle in a blanket and put it in the back of Ruth Paine's car when she picked up Marina. The rifle must have been in the blanket because one of the officers who searched Ruth Paine's house allegedly saw the impression of a rifle in the empty blanket after the rifle had been removed [really?]. Marina told us that in late September she looked in the blanket and saw the wooden stock of a rifle, so we assume that this must have been the same rifle Oswald ordered from Kleins'....
and on and on it goes..... That's the WC case. When highly qualified lawyers as those who worked for the WC produce something as shallow and weak as this, they are either completely incompetent (which I don't believe) or they do so because they know the case is never going to any court, except the court of public opinion and even there they failed to convince the majority of the people.
It supports the conclusion that Oswald assassinated JFK from the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30PM on 11.22.63.
No it doesn't and you can't explain how it does.....That why you have been running from answering my questions and that's why you are now hiding behind "the WC said so, so it must be true".
This isn't just my "claim" but that of the official investigation by federal and state law enforcement agencies. That is the evidence.
What a pathetic appeal to authority. You do know that's a logical fallacy, don't you? Don't you have a mind of your own? Try using it for once!
We know that if the evidence places Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 and in the 2nd floor lunchroom a few minutes later that he MUST have used the stairs and done so unnoticed because that was the ONLY means for him to have done so. The best evidence that a thing is possible is that it happened.
There it is again and it is still hilarious. Try to understand this; the evidence does not place Oswald on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and the evidence does not show that Oswald went down the stairs unnoticed. A whole bunch of assumptions not supported by any evidence does. And with enough assumptions you can reach any conclusion about anything or anybody. That's why assumptions are meaningless. But, just in case I am missing something, feel free to point out where I am wrong. Thumb1:
This is how your silly fairytale scenario goes; "we found a rifle on the 6th floor, which we assume belongs to Oswald and must have still been in his possession on 11/21/63. The mere fact that we found that rifle, which we also assume that Oswald brought into the building justifies the assumption that Oswald was on the 6th floor from where he shot Kennedy with a rifle that we only assume was indeed fired that day.
Do you understand how pathetically superficial this fairytale really is?
Your subjective interpretations of the witness description of events down to the exact second to fit your desired narrative is weak sauce to rebut the WC's evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... Have you actually ever read Chapter 4 of the WC report? Now, if you want to talk about comedy gold, there you have it!
If the WC had conclusive evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor, it should have been possible for you to defend it or at least explain why you think it's conclusive. You haven't done that and you are still hiding behind the fiction of the WC...
I can only wonder why. Could it be that you don't want to defend the WC's so-called evidence simply because you understand just how weak their assumptions really are?
I repeat; You are the first LN I know who has managed to demonstrate clearly that there is no evidence whatsoever for Oswald being on the 6th floor when the shots were fired Thumb1:
-
Wow, hang on... YOU claimed that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he came down the stairs unnoticed. You said that the evidence showed that. I asked you for that evidence.
Now you hide behind the WC, but they never provided any evidence that showed that Oswald was on the 6th floor and/or came down the stairs. They just concluded, based on highly dubious assumptions that Oswald killed Kennedy and never presented any evidence for him being on the 6th floor and/or coming down the stairs unnoticed. In fact, they simply ignored all of it; "We say he killed Kennedy, so he must of been on the 6th floor and must have come down the stairs". That was it!
This is exactly what I have been saying all along; your can not support your claims that Oswald was on the 6th floor and/or that he came down the stairs with evidence, because it simply doesn't exist. Will you ever learn that assumptions are not evidence?
The DPD and WC conducted an extensive investigation following the assassination.
Could you keep a straight face when you wrote this BS?
The WC outlined the evidence linking Oswald to this crime.
Nope. They outlined a whole bunch of selfserving assumptions that were supposed to link highly questionable pieces of evidence together and failed to notice or ignored that those pieces of evidence did not even support their assumptions and conclusions.
I have nothing to add to that evidence.
What evidence? The WC narrative? Well, let's examine it, shall we?
According to some FBI expert, Oswald wrote a Kleins' order form for a rifle in early 1963. We assume he ordered that rifle for himself, despite the fact that the order form has the name Hidell on it. Although there are no shipping documents and/or proof that Oswald received and collected that rifle, we assume that he must have received it, because Waldman said that a handwritten circle on Waldman 7 around the letters "PP" means it was sent. Oswald was photographed holding a rifle and although the experts disagree we nevertheless assume that it was the same rifle that was ordered from Kleins'. Without any credible evidence we also assume that Oswald used this rifle to fire a shot at General Walker. Obviously we ignore Walker's complaint about the bullet now in evidence (the only link to the rifle) not being the bullet the DPD took out of the wall of his home.
We then assume that Oswald took this rifle, he had just used for an attempted murder, on public transport to New Orleans. We "know" this because his wife said he sat on the stairs of the back porch after dark with a rifle. The next thing we assume is that Oswald wrapped that rifle in a blanket and put it in the back of Ruth Paine's car when she picked up Marina. The rifle must have been in the blanket because one of the officers who searched Ruth Paine's house allegedly saw the impression of a rifle in the empty blanket after the rifle had been removed [really?]. Marina told us that in late September she looked in the blanket and saw the wooden stock of a rifle, so we assume that this must have been the same rifle Oswald ordered from Kleins'....
and on and on it goes..... That's the WC case. When highly qualified lawyers as those who worked for the WC produce something as shallow and weak as this, they are either completely incompetent (which I don't believe) or they do so because they know the case is never going to any court, except the court of public opinion and even there they failed to convince the majority of the people.
It supports the conclusion that Oswald assassinated JFK from the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30PM on 11.22.63.
No it doesn't and you can't explain how it does.....That why you have been running from answering my questions and that's why you are now hiding behind "the WC said so, so it must be true".
This isn't just my "claim" but that of the official investigation by federal and state law enforcement agencies. That is the evidence.
What a pathetic appeal to authority. You do know that's a logical fallacy, don't you? Don't you have a mind of your own? Try using it for once!
We know that if the evidence places Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 and in the 2nd floor lunchroom a few minutes later that he MUST have used the stairs and done so unnoticed because that was the ONLY means for him to have done so. The best evidence that a thing is possible is that it happened.
There it is again and it is still hilarious. Try to understand this; the evidence does not place Oswald on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and the evidence does not show that Oswald went down the stairs unnoticed. A whole bunch of assumptions not supported by any evidence does. And with enough assumptions you can reach any conclusion about anything or anybody. That's why assumptions are meaningless. But, just in case I am missing something, feel free to point out where I am wrong. Thumb1:
This is how your silly fairytale scenario goes; "we found a rifle on the 6th floor, which we assume belongs to Oswald and must have still been in his possession on 11/21/63. The mere fact that we found that rifle, which we also assume that Oswald brought into the building justifies the assumption that Oswald was on the 6th floor from where he shot Kennedy with a rifle that we only assume was indeed fired that day.
Do you understand how pathetically superficial this fairytale really is?
Your subjective interpretations of the witness description of events down to the exact second to fit your desired narrative is weak sauce to rebut the WC's evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... Have you actually ever read Chapter 4 of the WC report? Now, if you want to talk about comedy gold, there you have it!
If the WC had conclusive evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor, it should have been possible for you to defend it or at least explain why you think it's conclusive. You haven't done that and you are still hiding behind the fiction of the WC...
I can only wonder why. Could it be that you don't want to defend the WC's so-called evidence simply because you understand just how weak their assumptions really are?
I repeat; You are the first LN I know who has managed to demonstrate clearly that there is no evidence whatsoever for Oswald being on the 6th floor when the shots were fired Thumb1:
So many words. I know that you don't accept the WC's evidence. That is because you have an impossible standard of proof when it comes to evidence of Oswald's guilt. You didn't ask me to convince you of Oswald's presence on the 6th floor. An impossible task because you are a CTer who has apparently concluded he is innocent. You asked what "my" evidence was. I've noted several times there was an extensive investigation of the case by state and federal authorities and that evidence is widely available. That evidence convinces me and any reasonable person of Oswald's guilt. I have not taken a magnifying glass to the TSBD looking for additional evidence like Sherlock Holmes as you appear to stupidly suggest is necessary. Continual deflections asking for "my" evidence are the kind of thing that a CTer contrarian uses to deflect away from their own conclusions. You have said that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" after the assassination. Can you explain to us how Oswald could still be the assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs" or not? If not, then concede that your position is that Oswald is innocent, and you are a CTer. Good grief. Your struggle to avoid accepting your own conclusions is hilarious. Like a child refusing to acknowledge that there is no Santa Claus.
-
Oswald got what he deserved.
-
So many words. I know that you don't accept the WC's evidence. That is because you have an impossible standard of proof when it comes to evidence of Oswald's guilt. You didn't ask me to convince you of Oswald's presence on the 6th floor. An impossible task because you are a CTer who has apparently concluded he is innocent. You asked what "my" evidence was. I've noted several times there was an extensive investigation of the case by state and federal authorities and that evidence is widely available. That evidence convinces me and any reasonable person of Oswald's guilt. I have not taken a magnifying glass to the TSBD looking for additional evidence like Sherlock Holmes as you appear to stupidly suggest is necessary. Continual deflections asking for "my" evidence are the kind of thing that a CTer contrarian uses to deflect away from their own conclusions. You have said that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" after the assassination. Can you explain to us how Oswald could still be the assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs" or not? If not, then concede that your position is that Oswald is innocent, and you are a CTer. Good grief. Your struggle to avoid accepting your own conclusions is hilarious. Like a child refusing to acknowledge that there is no Santa Claus.
I know that you don't accept the WC's evidence.
Utter BS. You don't know anything of the kind. Where the WC provides actual evidence I have no problem accepting it. What I don't accept are the superficial assumptions not supported by evidence and cherry picked misrepresentations of that evidence that you have blindly embraced as any proper zealot would.
That is because you have an impossible standard of proof when it comes to evidence of Oswald's guilt.
And there is the classic LN whining again, when they can not produce conclusive and persuasive evidence they get upset because the person they are trying to convince isn't fooled by their smoke and mirrors act. It's like a jehovah witness who complains that those who do not accept his beliefs and teachings is unreasonable. What it really is, is a pathetic admission of the weakness of their own case!
You didn't ask me to convince you of Oswald's presence on the 6th floor.
That is exactly what I asked you to do, after you made the foolish claim that the evidence showed Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and then added that he must have gone down the stairs unnoticed as the so-called "best evidence" for that was that he did.
An impossible task because you are a CTer who has apparently concluded he is innocent.
More BS. I have made no such conclusion, no matter how many times you repeat that bogus claim. Oswald not being the shooter doesn't automatically make him innocent, but it seems that's way over your head.
You are just trying to weasel your way out of a mess that you yourself have created. It's a standard argument of a loser.
You asked what "my" evidence was.
A logical and reasonable question when you claim that the evidence shows that Oswald was on the 6th floor and that he came down the stairs.
I've noted several times there was an extensive investigation of the case by state and federal authorities and that evidence is widely available. That evidence convinces me and any reasonable person of Oswald's guilt.
No reasonable person hides behind a pathetic appeal to authority and says "it must be true because they told me so"! And, btw, just because the biggest fool considers himself to be a reasonable person, doesn't mean that he is!
I have not taken a magnifying glass to the TSBD looking for additional evidence like Sherlock Holmes as you appear to stupidly suggest is necessary.
Well, it's pretty obvious that you didn't take a closer look at the details, which would have been a lot less stupid than just blindly accepting everything at face value. In criminal cases it's very often - if not always - that the details matter. A superficial case that on the surface seems solid, frequently falls apart when the details are examined more closely.
So, the bottom line is now that you actually admit to having no personal opinion about this case and that all you do is repeat the WC narrative you, for some weird reason, so desperately want to defend but not examine more closely.
Despite your foolish claims to the contrary, you simply have no evidence that Oswald was on the 6th floor and that he came down the stairs. Instead you just accept the WC assumptions that, as they have "concluded" Oswald killed Kennedy, he must have been on the 6th floor and he must have gone down the stairs. In other words, you've got nothing!
That's all I wanted to know.... Thumb1:
You have said that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" after the assassination. Can you explain to us how Oswald could still be the assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs" or not?
I never claimed that Oswald could still be the assassin if he didn't come down the stairs, so there is no reason for me to explain this.
-
You have said that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" after the assassination. Can you explain to us how Oswald could still be the assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs" or not?
I never claimed that Oswald could still be the assassin if he didn't come down the stairs, so there is no reason for me to explain this.
You have concluded that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" but refused to confirm that this means that you have concluded that Oswald is innocent. Can you cut the double talk and endless commentary and just confirm whether your position is that Oswald is innocent or that there was some other way other than the stairs that would have allowed him to be on the 6th floor at the moment of the assassination. Which is it? This is not a trick question.
-
You have concluded that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" but refused to confirm that this means that you have concluded that Oswald is innocent. Can you cut the double talk and endless commentary and just confirm whether your position is that Oswald is innocent or that there was some other way other than the stairs that would have allowed him to be on the 6th floor at the moment of the assassination. Which is it? This is not a trick question.
You have concluded that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" but refused to confirm that this means that you have concluded that Oswald is innocent.
Because I did not conclude that. The logical conclusion is that if he didn't come down the stairs he couldn't have been the assassin.
It's not really my problem that you don't understand my answer.
-
You have concluded that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" but refused to confirm that this means that you have concluded that Oswald is innocent.
Because I did not conclude that. The logical conclusion is that if he didn't come down the stairs he couldn't have been the assassin.
It's not really my problem that you don't understand my answer.
So you leave open the possibility that Oswald DID come down the stairs?
-
So you leave open the possibility that Oswald DID come down the stairs?
You clearly still do not understand what I have been telling you. No doubt you are going to reach the wrong conclusion from my answer, but since you asked;
Why do you think I have been asking you for evidence to back up your claim that Oswald was on the 6th floor and did go down the stairs? Unlike you I am always interested in evidence (not assumptions) contrary to my position.
Having said that, all the available evidence points in the direction of him not coming down the stairs, and the assumption by the WC (and you) that he must have done doesn't alter that.
-
You clearly still do not understand what I have been telling you. No doubt you are going to reach the wrong conclusion from my answer, but since you asked;
Why do you think I have been asking you for evidence to back up your claim that Oswald was on the 6th floor and did go down the stairs? Unlike you I am always interested in evidence (not assumptions) contrary to my position.
Having said that, all the available evidence points in the direction of him not coming down the stairs, and the assumption by the WC (and you) that he must have done doesn't alter that.
Why is this so complicated? I'm just trying to understand your position. You said Oswald "didn't come down the stairs." You then indicated that if Oswald didn't come down the stairs, he couldn't have been the assassin. So is it your conclusion that Oswald is innocent or not? There doesn't appear to be any other way to reconcile these conclusions except that you believe Oswald must be innocent, but you have discussed everything under the sun instead of clarifying this point.
-
Why is this so complicated? I'm just trying to understand your position. You said Oswald "didn't come down the stairs." You then indicated that if Oswald didn't come down the stairs, he couldn't have been the assassin. So is it your conclusion that Oswald is innocent or not? There doesn't appear to be any other way to reconcile these conclusions except that you believe Oswald must be innocent, but you have discussed everything under the sun instead of clarifying this point.
Why is this so complicated? I'm just trying to understand your position.
I don't know why it is so complicated for you. It's pretty straight foward stuff
You said Oswald "didn't come down the stairs."
Yes, that is my opinion, based on the now available evidence. And you have still not produced a shred of evidence for your claim that he did come down the stairs. You do understand the difference between an opinion and a claim, right?
You then indicated that if Oswald didn't come down the stairs, he couldn't have been the assassin.
I didn't indicate that. You did, time after time, and I agreed with you a long time ago because it's the only logical conclusion. If he wasn't on the 6th floor, he couldn't have shot anybody from there.
So is it your conclusion that Oswald is innocent or not?
It seems to be your conclusion that if Oswald wasn't the assassin, he must be innocent. Which is where you have been going off the rails constantly.
There doesn't appear to be any other way to reconcile these conclusions except that you believe Oswald must be innocent
I don't have to believe that Oswald was innocent, just because he wasn't the assassin. Why should I believe that?
-
Has it escaped anybody’s notice that “Richard” still has yet to provide a single speck of evidence that Oswald was on the sixth floor at 12:30 and came down the stairs in 75 seconds?
-
Has it escaped anybody’s notice that “Richard” still has yet to provide a single speck of evidence that Oswald was on the sixth floor at 12:30 and came down the stairs in 75 seconds?
You're asking Mr "Smith" to produce and present the impossible. Richard couldn't possibly produce an iota of evidence that Lee Oswald was on the sixth floor at 12:30 that day. But we do have Captain Fritz telling us that Jarman and Norman were on the 1st floor at 12:27 and Lee Oswald told Fritz that he saw them walk by the 1st floor lunchroom, at that time. It's highly unlikely that Lee could have been firing a rifle from that sixth floor window just three minutes later.....and then have been seen by officer Baker in the second floor lunchroom at 12:32 .....
-
There doesn't appear to be any other way to reconcile these conclusions except that you believe Oswald must be innocent
I don't have to believe that Oswald was innocent, just because he wasn't the assassin. Why should I believe that?
So your conclusion IS that Oswald wasn't the assassin?
-
So your conclusion IS that Oswald wasn't the assassin?
Stop showing off your ignorance by asking dumb questions.
My conclusion is that you can not provide any evidence that shows Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he came down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot.
-
Stop showing off your ignorance by asking dumb questions.
My conclusion is that you can not provide any evidence that shows Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he came down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot.
LOL. Is it YOUR conclusion that Oswald "wasn't the assassin"? Yes or no. This isn't difficult since you presumably know your own position.
-
You're asking Mr "Smith" to produce and present the impossible. Richard couldn't possibly produce an iota of evidence that Lee Oswald was on the sixth floor at 12:30 that day. But we do have Captain Fritz telling us that Jarman and Norman were on the 1st floor at 12:27 and Lee Oswald told Fritz that he saw them walk by the 1st floor lunchroom, at that time. It's highly unlikely that Lee could have been firing a rifle from that sixth floor window just three minutes later.....and then have been seen by officer Baker in the second floor lunchroom at 12:32 .....
Lee Oswald told Fritz
_Then it must be true
Okay, he can go
-
The reason "Richard" struggles with this so much is because he forms conclusions without substantiation, so he expects others to do the same thing.
-
The reason "Richard" struggles with this so much is because he forms conclusions without substantiation, so he expects others to do the same thing.
Indeed.
But what can you expect from somebody who doesn't know the difference between an opinion and a claim, confuses assumptions with actual evidence and make claims he can not support with any evidence?
-
Indeed.
But what can you expect from somebody who doesn't know the difference between an opinion and a claim, confuses assumptions with actual evidence and make claims he can not support with any evidence?
So you have concluded that Oswald wasn't the assassin? That's not a trick question. Why won't you even state YOUR own position instead of deflecting with endless personal commentary? It is very amusing. Let us summarize.
1) You concluded that "Oswald didn't come down the stairs".
2) You appear to agree that Oswald couldn't have been the assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs."
So just confirm that your position is that Oswald was not the assassin. That is the only apparent implication that can be drawn from YOUR conclusions. Why not just clarify that?
-
So you have concluded that Oswald wasn't the assassin? That's not a trick question. Why won't you even state YOUR own position instead of deflecting with endless personal commentary? It is very amusing. Let us summarize.
1) You concluded that "Oswald didn't come down the stairs".
2) You appear to agree that Oswald couldn't have been the assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs."
So just confirm that your position is that Oswald was not the assassin. That is the only apparent implication that can be drawn from YOUR conclusions. Why not just clarify that?
1) You concluded that "Oswald didn't come down the stairs".
I concluded that all the available evidence points to him not coming down the stairs as well as that you are unable to substantiate your claim that he did come down the stairs with even a shred of evidence.
2) You appear to agree that Oswald couldn't have been the assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs."
It's a reasonable and logical inference. Even more so after you failed completely to provide any persuasive evidence for your claim that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired.
So just confirm that your position is that Oswald was not the assassin. That is the only apparent implication that can be drawn from YOUR conclusions.
Does this mean that you believe my opinions are correct and can't possibly be wrong?
-
1) You concluded that "Oswald didn't come down the stairs".
I concluded that all the available evidence points to him not coming down the stairs as well as that you are unable to substantiate your claim that he did come down the stairs with even a shred of evidence.
2) You appear to agree that Oswald couldn't have been the assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs."
It's a reasonable and logical inference. Even more so after you failed completely to provide any persuasive evidence for your claim that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired.
So just confirm that your position is that Oswald was not the assassin. That is the only apparent implication that can be drawn from YOUR conclusions.
Does this mean that you believe my opinions are correct and can't possibly be wrong?
This is absolutely amazing. We are at about a hundred or more attempts, and you still will not state YOUR own position. Again, based on your conclusions that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" and couldn't have been the 6th floor assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs" then is it YOUR position/claim/conclusion whatever you want to call it that Oswald wasn't the assassin? Why can't you just say that if that is your conclusion? If you won't even confirm your own position on the matter, it is impossible to have a discussion. And it is amazing that you are apparently such a contrarian that you won't even acknowledge conclusions that you yourself have apparently reached.
-
This is absolutely amazing. We are at about a hundred or more attempts, and you still will not state YOUR own position. Again, based on your conclusions that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" and couldn't have been the 6th floor assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs" then is it YOUR position/claim/conclusion whatever you want to call it that Oswald wasn't the assassin? Why can't you just say that if that is your conclusion? If you won't even confirm your own position on the matter, it is impossible to have a discussion. And it is amazing that you are apparently such a contrarian that you won't even acknowledge conclusions that you yourself have apparently reached.
This is absolutely amazing. We are at about a hundred or more attempts, and you still will not state YOUR own position.
There is nothing amazing about me not stating what you want "my position" to be. You can make a hundred or more attempts if you like. You're only looking for something you can attack and ridicule.
Again, based on your conclusions that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" and couldn't have been the 6th floor assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs" then is it YOUR position/claim/conclusion whatever you want to call it that Oswald wasn't the assassin?
Stop telling me what my position or conclusion [there is no claim] is. The mistake you are constantly making is that you place everything in the context of the assumption that the official WC narrative is somehow is correct, despite the fact that it consists of dubious interpretations of pieces of evidence, assumptions and speculative conclusions that are not supported by the evidence.
The "Oswald didn't come down the stairs" opinion [based on all the known available evidence] could indicate that the official narrative is nothing more than a fabricated story to wrap the case around an already dead Oswald regardless of his guilt or innocence. So, how can that opinion tell me anything about him being the lone assassin or not?
Why can't you just say that if that is your conclusion?
Because it isn't. I know this is a foreign concept to you, but I don't jump to conclusions without knowing all the evidence. If you want me to make a conclusion, you somehow must believe that I have seen all the evidence. Is that the case?
If you won't even confirm your own position on the matter, it is impossible to have a discussion.
Hilarious. In general, it's always impossible to have a discussion with you, because you don't understand that in a discussion one listens to what the other has to say and one answers questions. You never do. All anybody gets from your is idiotic rants in which you only repeat yourself over and over again and never ever reply to anything somebody else has said, unless you can do so with pathetic ridicule.
In this case I have been asking you since August to substantiate your claims that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he did manage to come down the stairs unnoticed within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot. Cowardly, you have tried to hide behind the WC report in a desperate and pitiful appeal to authority which ignored the obvious fact that the WC report did not offer any persuasive and conclusive evidence for Oswald's alledged presence on the 6th floor and completely ignored the "coming down the stairs" part.
And then you complain about the impossibility of having a conversation? Really?
And it is amazing that you are apparently such a contrarian that you won't even acknowledge conclusions that you yourself have apparently reached.
Says the real contrarian who, for months now, has tried to avoid backing up his claims with evidence and/or conclusions of his own, based on that evidence.
-
If you won't even confirm your own position on the matter, it is impossible to have a discussion.
Only for somebody who is doing everything he can to deflect any discussion of his own claims in a desperate attempt to attribute some claims to somebody else so you can shift the burden.
-
Again, based on your conclusions that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" and couldn't have been the 6th floor assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs" then is it YOUR position/claim/conclusion whatever you want to call it that Oswald wasn't the assassin?
Stop telling me what my position or conclusion [there is no claim] is. The mistake you are constantly making is that you place everything in the context of the assumption that the official WC narrative is somehow is correct, despite the fact that it consists of dubious interpretations of pieces of evidence, assumptions and speculative conclusions that are not supported by the evidence.
The "Oswald didn't come down the stairs" opinion [based on all the known available evidence] could indicate that the official narrative is nothing more than a fabricated story to wrap the case around an already dead Oswald regardless of his guilt or innocence. So, how can that opinion tell me anything about him being the lone assassin or not?
Why can't you just say that if that is your conclusion?
Because it isn't. I know this is a foreign concept to you, but I don't jump to conclusions without knowing all the evidence. If you want me to make a conclusion, you somehow must believe that I have seen all the evidence. Is that the case?
If you won't even confirm your own position on the matter, it is impossible to have a discussion.
Hilarious. In general, it's always impossible to have a discussion with you, because you don't understand that in a discussion one listens to what the other has to say and one answers questions. You never do. All anybody gets from your is idiotic rants in which you only repeat yourself over and over again and never ever reply to anything somebody else has said, unless you can do so with pathetic ridicule.
Truly amazing. So many words but again no answer to the simple question posed. What is YOUR position as to whether Oswald was the assassin? I'm not telling you what your position or conclusion is in this case. I'm simply asked you to confirm it based on what you have stated here as facts. Again, you indicated that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs." This is not an opinion. You said it didn't happen. Are you now changing this view and conceding that Oswald might have come down the stairs unnoticed? You also acknowledged that if Oswald didn't come the stairs (again as you concluded) that he couldn't have been the assassin. So again, if this is what YOU believe, why not just accept the only possible implication of YOUR position? That Oswald wasn't the assassin.
-
Truly amazing. So many words but again no answer to the simple question posed. What is YOUR position as to whether Oswald was the assassin? I'm not telling you what your position or conclusion is in this case. I simply asked you to confirm it based on what you have stated here as facts. Again, you indicated that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs." This is not an opinion. You said it didn't happen. Are you now changing this view and conceding that Oswald might have come down the stairs unnoticed? You also acknowledged that if Oswald didn't come the stairs (again as you concluded) that he couldn't have been the assassin. So again, if this is what YOU believe, why not just accept the only possible implication of YOUR position? That Oswald wasn't the assassin.
First of all, don't edit my answer to your previous post in your quote. It's a violation of this forum's rules.
What is YOUR position as to whether Oswald was the assassin?
Don't have one, yet. All I can tell you is that I do not find the official narrative convincing.
what you have stated here as facts.
Stop misrepresenting what I have stated. I have never claimed that any of my opinions are "facts". I'm not like you!
Again, you indicated that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs." This is not an opinion.
Of course it is. It can be changed if and when evidence is presented to show that my opinion is incorrect, which is exactly why I have been asking you for more than two months for the evidence to support your claims that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and came down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot.
There wouldn't be much point in asking you for this evidence if my mind was firmly made up.
Are you now changing this view and conceding that Oswald might have come down the stairs unnoticed?
Why would I do that? I have no reason to change my opinion as long as you haven't provided the evidence I asked for.
Btw why are you asking me if I have changed my opinion, when you earlier claimed that my point of view wasn't an opinion? Will you ever start making sense?
But seriously, how in the world can anybody conclude that Oswald did come down the stairs, and thus must have been on the 6th floor when the shots were fired, when there is not a shred of evidence to support such a claim and all the available evidence points to him not coming down the stairs?
So again, if this is what YOU believe, why not just accept the only possible implication of YOUR position? That Oswald wasn't the assassin.
Just how stupid must you be to ask the same, already answered, question over and over again?
Again, that's not the only possible implication of my position. You seem to misunderstand my position completely, no matter how often I have already explained it.
Here's another clue; if Oswald didn't come down the stairs (and there is no evidence that he did). it raises justifiable doubt about the veracity of the office narrative, so what else in that narrative is wrong?
-
This is absolutely amazing. We are at about a hundred or more attempts, and you still will not state YOUR own position.
There is nothing amazing about me not stating what you want "my position" to be. You can make a hundred or more attempts if you like. You're only looking for something you can attack and ridicule.
Again, based on your conclusions that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" and couldn't have been the 6th floor assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs" then is it YOUR position/claim/conclusion whatever you want to call it that Oswald wasn't the assassin?
Stop telling me what my position or conclusion [there is no claim] is. The mistake you are constantly making is that you place everything in the context of the assumption that the official WC narrative is somehow is correct, despite the fact that it consists of dubious interpretations of pieces of evidence, assumptions and speculative conclusions that are not supported by the evidence.
The "Oswald didn't come down the stairs" opinion [based on all the known available evidence] could indicate that the official narrative is nothing more than a fabricated story to wrap the case around an already dead Oswald regardless of his guilt or innocence. So, how can that opinion tell me anything about him being the lone assassin or not?
Why can't you just say that if that is your conclusion?
Because it isn't. I know this is a foreign concept to you, but I don't jump to conclusions without knowing all the evidence. If you want me to make a conclusion, you somehow must believe that I have seen all the evidence. Is that the case?
If you won't even confirm your own position on the matter, it is impossible to have a discussion.
Hilarious. In general, it's always impossible to have a discussion with you, because you don't understand that in a discussion one listens to what the other has to say and one answers questions. You never do. All anybody gets from your is idiotic rants in which you only repeat yourself over and over again and never ever reply to anything somebody else has said, unless you can do so with pathetic ridicule.
In this case I have been asking you since August to substantiate your claims that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he did manage to come down the stairs unnoticed within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot. Cowardly, you have tried to hide behind the WC report in a desperate and pitiful appeal to authority which ignored the obvious fact that the WC report did not offer any persuasive and conclusive evidence for Oswald's alledged presence on the 6th floor and completely ignored the "coming down the stairs" part.
And then you complain about the impossibility of having a conversation? Really?
And it is amazing that you are apparently such a contrarian that you won't even acknowledge conclusions that you yourself have apparently reached.
Says the real contrarian who, for months now, has tried to avoid backing up his claims with evidence and/or conclusions of his own, based on that evidence.
It's very obvious that Mr "Smith" wants to label anybody who challenges the declaration of LBJ' s "Special Committee" a "Conspiracy Theorist"....and in his warped mind he believes that a CT is akin to a raving lunatic.... This has always been the goal of the government....."Smith" wants anybody who rejects the official US government proclamation to be ridiculed and labeled a "nut".
Agent "Smith" has desperately been trying to label Mr Weidman a CT, so he can ridicule and attempt to discredit Mr Weidman. It's clear the Mr Weidman does not want to be labeled a "CT" and associated with some of he loons that have utterly crazy ideas about who murdered President Kennedy.
-
It's very obvious that Mr "Smith" wants to label anybody who challenges the declaration of LBJ' s "Special Committee" a "Conspiracy Theorist"....and in his warped mind he believes that a CT is akin to a raving lunatic.... This has always been the goal of the government....."Smith" wants anybody who rejects the official US government proclamation to be ridiculed and labeled a "nut".
Agent "Smith" has desperately been trying to label Mr Weidman a CT, so he can ridicule and attempt to discredit Mr Weidman. It's clear the Mr Weidman does not want to be labeled a "CT" and associated with some of he loons that have utterly crazy ideas about who murdered President Kennedy.
I wonder where I get the impression that JFK CTers are raving lunatics? Anyone come to mind (think "red rings")? As I've said to you many times before, I have no issue accepting the concept of a conspiracy. There was a conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln, for example. I agree that the evidence supports that conclusion. That makes me a CTer in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. There is no such evidence in the JFK case. Certainly nothing you or Martin have ever provided. And your issue is with Martin - not me. He is the one who is apparently ashamed to admit that he shares your CTer conclusions. I can't blame him for that, but that means only that he is a coward instead of an admitted kook.
-
First of all, don't edit my answer to your previous post in your quote. It's a violation of this forum's rules.
What is YOUR position as to whether Oswald was the assassin?
Don't have one, yet. All I can tell you is that I do not find the official narrative convincing.
what you have stated here as facts.
Stop misrepresenting what I have stated. I have never claimed that any of my opinions are "facts". I'm not like you!
Again, you indicated that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs." This is not an opinion.
Of course it is. It can be changed if and when evidence is presented to show that my opinion is incorrect, which is exactly why I have been asking you for more than two months for the evidence to support your claims that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and came down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot.
There wouldn't be much point in asking you for this evidence if my mind was firmly made up.
Are you now changing this view and conceding that Oswald might have come down the stairs unnoticed?
Why would I do that? I have no reason to change my opinion as long as you haven't provided the evidence I asked for.
Btw why are you asking me if I have changed my opinion, when you earlier claimed that my point of view wasn't an opinion? Will you ever start making sense?
But seriously, how in the world can anybody conclude that Oswald did come down the stairs, and thus must have been on the 6th floor when the shots were fired, when there is not a shred of evidence to support such a claim and all the available evidence points to him not coming down the stairs?
So again, if this is what YOU believe, why not just accept the only possible implication of YOUR position? That Oswald wasn't the assassin.
Just how stupid must you be to ask the same, already answered, question over and over again?
Again, that's not the only possible implication of my position. You seem to misunderstand my position completely, no matter how often I have already explained it.
Here's another clue; if Oswald didn't come down the stairs (and there is no evidence that he did). it raises justifiable doubt about the veracity of the office narrative, so what else in that narrative is wrong?
So you leave open the possibility that Oswald DID come down the stairs unnoticed when you make statements like Oswald "DIDN'T come down the stairs"? That is truly Alice-in-Wonderland stuff. When you make an affirmative statement like Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" that is a conclusion not an opinion as you stupidly suggest in your desire to avoid defending your own conclusions. A conclusion can be wrong but that doesn't make it a subjective opinion. You are just going round and round in contrarian circles. You make affirmative statements based on your analysis of the evidence then dance like a circus monkey to avoid confirming that you accept the implications of your own conclusions.
-
So you leave open the possibility that Oswald DID come down the stairs unnoticed when you make statements like Oswald "DIDN'T come down the stairs"? That is truly Alice-in-Wonderland stuff. When you make an affirmative statement like Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" that is a conclusion not an opinion as you stupidly suggest in your desire to avoid defending your own conclusions. A conclusion can be wrong but that doesn't make it a subjective opinion. You are just going round and round in contrarian circles. You make affirmative statements based on your analysis of the evidence then dance like a circus monkey to avoid confirming that you accept the implications of your own conclusions.
So you leave open the possibility that Oswald DID come down the stairs unnoticed when you make statements like Oswald "DIDN'T come down the stairs"? That is truly Alice-in-Wonderland stuff.
Yes it is and it all comes from your confused mind. I never said anything of the kind. You really need to stop misrepresenting my words. Why are you struggling so much to understand this straight forward stuff?
Could it be you have a reading comprehension problem? This is an extract of my previous post;
Are you now changing this view and conceding that Oswald might have come down the stairs unnoticed?
Why would I do that? I have no reason to change my opinion as long as you haven't provided the evidence I asked for.
Btw why are you asking me if I have changed my opinion, when you earlier claimed that my point of view wasn't an opinion? Will you ever start making sense?
It seems you're all over the place... :D
When you make an affirmative statement like Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" that is a conclusion not an opinion as you stupidly suggest in your desire to avoid defending your own conclusions.
Semantics and utter nonsense.
You make affirmative statements based on your analysis of the evidence then dance like a circus monkey to avoid confirming that you accept the implications of your own conclusions.
Looking in the mirror again?
Will we ever get the evidence from you that substantiates your claims that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he came down the stairs unnoticed after that. You've been doing a song and dance act for more than two months now.
And please try at some point to get out of your alternate reality and back into the real word. Or alternatively, feel free to write another stupid post.
-
A conclusion can be wrong but that doesn't make it a subjective opinion.
Of course a conclusion is a subjective opinion. No wonder your arguments are so nonsensical.
-
So you leave open the possibility that Oswald DID come down the stairs unnoticed when you make statements like Oswald "DIDN'T come down the stairs"? That is truly Alice-in-Wonderland stuff.
Yes it is and it all comes from your confused mind. I never said anything of the kind. You really need to stop misrepresenting my words. Why are you struggling so much to understand this straight forward stuff?
"If Oswald had come down the stairs within 75 seconds after the shots, he would have been seen by Dorothy Garner, who was standing next to the stairs on the 4th floor.
She heard Adams and Styles going down on the stairs and saw Baker and Truly come up. Somewhere in between these two events Oswald would have be passing the 4th floor. The reason Garner did not see him is simple; he didn't come down the stairs."
Above are your exact words. You stated an affirmative conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs." You didn't say that one possible reason Garner didn't see him was that he didn't come down the stairs or even that this is the most likely reason. You said without any qualification that the reason Garner did not see him is because "he didn't come down the stairs. " That is a textbook definition of a conclusion. You have made a decision about the matter rather than merely expressing a belief. But if you want us to accept your dishonest and incorrect revisionist interpretation of this statement as merely your own opinion leaving open the possibility that Oswald could have come down the stairs unnoticed, that is fine with me since that is exactly what happened. An added bonus here is that the contrarian brothers apparently don't entertain the possibility of anyone, including themselves, of ever reaching a conclusion. Everything is merely an assumption or opinion. No fact can ever be proven in their contrarian fantasy world.
-
Why even have an investigation? Of any event? If the possibility is that the conclusion is wrong - since the evidence for that conclusion may be false - then why investigate...well, anything?
They say they are here to discuss the evidence. But they also say the evidence may be corrupt (in fact, they sometimes actually say it is corrupt or tainted either explicitly or in so many words). So what's the use of discussing this event? Or any event? The information/evidence can be inauthentic or false. So it's useless to do so.
Might as well empty our libraries since those history books might be wrong (they say this about Caro's works on LBJ; he might be wrong and LBJ may have been the mastermind behind the assassination). Why even read history? Why read...well anything? It could all be false after all.
This is a form of nihilism, of anti-intellectualism. All in the service of Lee Oswald? Because none of this nihilism, this absurd standard, is used against the conspiracists and their claims.
-
"If Oswald had come down the stairs within 75 seconds after the shots, he would have been seen by Dorothy Garner, who was standing next to the stairs on the 4th floor.
She heard Adams and Styles going down on the stairs and saw Baker and Truly come up. Somewhere in between these two events Oswald would have be passing the 4th floor. The reason Garner did not see him is simple; he didn't come down the stairs."
Above are your exact words. You stated an affirmative conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs." You didn't say that one possible reason Garner didn't see him was that he didn't come down the stairs or even that this is the most likely reason. You said without any qualification that the reason Garner did not see him is because "he didn't come down the stairs. " That is a textbook definition of a conclusion. You have made a decision about the matter rather than merely expressing a belief. But if you want us to accept your dishonest and incorrect revisionist interpretation of this statement as merely your own opinion leaving open the possibility that Oswald could have come down the stairs unnoticed, that is fine with me since that is exactly what happened. An added bonus here is that the contrarian brothers apparently don't entertain the possibility of anyone, including themselves, of ever reaching a conclusion. Everything is merely an assumption or opinion. No fact can ever be proven in their contrarian fantasy world.
Above are your exact words. You stated an affirmative conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs."
Yes that's my opinion after looking at all the available evidence, known to me, which clearly points towards only one possible conclusion, which is that Oswald could not and thus did not come down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot.
Did I miss something? It's always possible, but I seriously doubt it, because although you claim that Oswald did come down the stairs unnoticed, you have been fighting tooth and nail for more than two months now to present the evidence for that claim.
leaving open the possibility that Oswald could have come down the stairs unnoticed, that is fine with me since that is exactly what happened.
And there is the claim again that I have been asking you for months now to provide evidence for. Are we going to get the evidence this time that shows that Oswald did come down the stairs unnoticed?
An added bonus here is that the contrarian brothers apparently don't entertain the possibility of anyone, including themselves, of ever reaching a conclusion. Everything is merely an assumption or opinion.
That's just another stupid comment. Looking at the available evidence and concluding that Oswald didn't come down the stairs is a opinion or conclusion. Claiming that Oswald did come down the stairs based on no evidence at all is an assumption. Why am I not surprised that you don't understand the difference between the two?
No fact can ever be proven in their contrarian fantasy world
To prove a fact you need to present conclusive evidence. So, where is it? Why don't you just show it and be done with it. Here's your chance to show that John and I have the wrong opinion. Go on then.....
-
Why even have an investigation? Of any event? If the possibility is that the conclusion is wrong - the evidence for that conclusion may be false - then why investigate...well, anything?
They say they are here to discuss the evidence. But they also say the evidence may be corrupt (in fact, they actually do in so many words). So what's the use of discussing this event? Or any event? The information/evidence can be inauthentic or false. So it's useless to do so.
Might as well empty our libraries since those history books might be wrong (they say this about Caro's works on LBJ; he might be wrong and LBJ was the mastermind behind the assassination). Why even read history? Why read...well anything? It could all be false after all.
This is a form of nihilism, of anti-intellectualism. All in the service of Lee Oswald?
If the possibility is that the conclusion is wrong - the evidence for that conclusion may be false -
History shows us time after time that conclusions were wrong and that evidence can be and was tampered with.
One example is the Dreyfus affair in France. Another is the Nazi myth of the Reichstag fire. And while you are at it, have a look at how wrong the history books were for hundreds of years about the Donation of Constantine. Closer to home, just look at the number of unsafe and wrongful convictions that are overturned many years after the fact.
Perhaps you should consider the saying; "History is written by the victors". Rings a bell, perhaps?
then why investigate...well, anything?
So, just because investigations don't always get it right, we should do away with all investigations? Really? Are you really this naive?
They say they are here to discuss the evidence. But they also say the evidence may be corrupt (in fact, they actually do in so many words). So what's the use of discussing this event?
To find out if the evidence was indeed corrupt or not, perhaps? But since you raised the point, I don't recall having seen you ever discussing the evidence or the case itself, so what exactly are you here for? Just to complain, time after time, about all those nasty people who don't share your die hard belief in a massive fairytale, perhaps?
Might as well empty our libraries since those history books might be wrong (they say this about Caro's works on LBJ; he might be wrong and LBJ was the mastermind behind the assassination). Why even read history? Why read...well anything? It could all be false after all.
Oh the dramatics.....
This is a form of nihilism, of anti-intellectualism.
So, let see if I understand this correctly; it's anti-intellectualism to read a history book that might be wrong? Really?
Were you born this stupid and narrowminded or did it come to you as you grew up?
-
But if you want us to accept your dishonest and incorrect revisionist interpretation of this statement as merely your own opinion leaving open the possibility that Oswald could have come down the stairs unnoticed, that is fine with me since that is exactly what happened.
LOL.
An added bonus here is that the contrarian brothers apparently don't entertain the possibility of anyone, including themselves, of ever reaching a conclusion. Everything is merely an assumption or opinion. No fact can ever be proven in their contrarian fantasy world.
Bull, Strawman "Smith". There's nothing magical about a "conclusion" that makes it any more likely to be true than any other opinion. You're making a distinction that doesn't exist.
-
I have been watching this over the past several weeks and it is comical. Richard, you've got to be putting us on.
You've got to be--nobody can be that dim. You claim Lee Oswald was on the sixth floor at the time of the shots and
he ran down those stairs roughly 75 sec after the last shot and nobody heard him. Nobody heard him. That part's right.
Then, when Martin questions you to show proof of your claim, you dance. Why can't you answer that question. It should be very simple.
But every part of this case is completely f'-d up, that is not demonstrated by Conspiracy Theorists but by disputing "facts" throughout this case
It is the murder of a President, yet, there is not one single piece of solid absolute proof that Lee Oswald shot JFK.
And it is incredible that so many things could be so wrong with a case of such magnitude that had to be perfect in every way.
It is completely far from it. It is a disgrace. And the HSCA Investigation made it no better, in some ways made it worse.
Nutters always say there's no one single piece of evidence, it is the totality of evidence that finds him guilty without a doubt.
You might think that if all you read was the 900 page Summary Report, But you would be fooled by the many contradictions when compared to the 26 volumes.
That is incredible after almost 60 years. Why is this not easy? - It's not a cobbled CT industry, critics could care less about conspiracy theories.
Besides, these matters of discrepancy have been around since 1964. You might say the Mauser has been resolved years ago. It wasn't even that. It was a 7.65 issue.
Can two different officers, from different locations, knew the shells were 6.5mm, go back and swear to 7.65 five times over three days. Why is that not easily resolved?
Weitzman says on the stand, "I must have been mistaken", and that's all you need to hear. When did he realize this? When did they ever show him CE 139?
It's not in the record. It's not that much to ask, but when considering all the other things that are wrong with the case, it becomes essential.
Do you think CTs make up stories? - well maybe they do, but the critic doesn't. He doesn't have to. I don't understand why you don't get that.
But then, you must know already that you can't defend the Report, and so you play the "straw man" and attempt to project Martin as doing the same thing you do every day.
Dodge ball. Just answer the question. What is the proof that Oswald was on the 6th floor at the time of the shots? Brennan? - perhaps, if you cherry pick while he embellishes.
I find it fascinating that so many people from so many walks of life are mistaken about the same thing. Doctors, medical professionals, trained police, and detectives.
All wrong about the same thing. Statements made to the FBI that directly contradict the narrative. Are these people lying? - Can you lie to the FBI?
Or the witness that made some statement against the official conclusion and is suddenly hounded by the FBI, and not to bring new questions or gather new information.
Arnold Roland is a prime example - they went after his school grades and hear-say to discredit him, and hounded him repeatedly. What did he see in the window?
Then, what about when a couple of people saw the same thing from different parts of the plaza. Dark skin, light brown clothing, or even several men.
Why wouldn't they call the prisoners that saw it all from across the street at the 6th floor level. In June '64, one of Jack Ruby's attorneys, Stanly Kaufman, made a suggestion
to Commission Assistant Counsel, Leon Herbert, that the prisoners, "...had a good view of what took place..." "it might be helpful to the Commission to know that there were people
in jail who saw the actual killing." June 1964, how could they not call them? This is not conspiracy theory, yet it exists throughout this case.
And so Richard, you are smarter then that, and we know it. You should be able to bowl Martin over with facts and proof. Why can't you? - Does he have any reason not to believe you?
Then you turn criticism of your claim into Martin's conspiracy theory, that nobody heard him on the stairs and therefore Lee could not be the assassin. I think I read that right.
But that's an obvious act, because all you have to do is show the proof of your claim and it's game over for Martin - That should have been done weeks ago.
Have you ever considered that failure to be the actual proof of a conspiracy in this case?
-
I have been watching this over the past several weeks and it is comical. Richard, you've got to be putting us on.
You've got to be--nobody can be that dim. You claim Lee Oswald was on the sixth floor at the time of the shots and
he ran down those stairs roughly 75 sec after the last shot and nobody heard him. Nobody heard him. That part's right.
Then, when Martin questions you to show proof of your claim, you dance. Why can't you answer that question. It should be very simple.
But every part of this case is completely f'-d up, that is not demonstrated by Conspiracy Theorists but by disputing "facts" throughout this case
It is the murder of a President, yet, there is not one single piece of solid absolute proof that Lee Oswald shot JFK.
And it is incredible that so many things could be so wrong with a case of such magnitude that had to be perfect in every way.
It is completely far from it. It is a disgrace. And the HSCA Investigation made it no better, in some ways made it worse.
Nutters always say there's no one single piece of evidence, it is the totality of evidence that finds him guilty without a doubt.
You might think that if all you read was the 900 page Summary Report, But you would be fooled by the many contradictions when compared to the 26 volumes.
That is incredible after almost 60 years. Why is this not easy? - It's not a cobbled CT industry, critics could care less about conspiracy theories.
Besides, these matters of discrepancy have been around since 1964. You might say the Mauser has been resolved years ago. It wasn't even that. It was a 7.65 issue.
Can two different officers, from different locations, knew the shells were 6.5mm, go back and swear to 7.65 five times over three days. Why is that not easily resolved?
Weitzman says on the stand, "I must have been mistaken", and that's all you need to hear. When did he realize this? When did they ever show him CE 139?
It's not in the record. It's not that much to ask, but when considering all the other things that are wrong with the case, it becomes essential.
Do you think CTs make up stories? - well maybe they do, but the critic doesn't. He doesn't have to. I don't understand why you don't get that.
But then, you must know already that you can't defend the Report, and so you play the "straw man" and attempt to project Martin as doing the same thing you do every day.
Dodge ball. Just answer the question. What is the proof that Oswald was on the 6th floor at the time of the shots? Brennan? - perhaps, if you cherry pick while he embellishes.
I find it fascinating that so many people from so many walks of life are mistaken about the same thing. Doctors, medical professionals, trained police, and detectives.
All wrong about the same thing. Statements made to the FBI that directly contradict the narrative. Are these people lying? - Can you lie to the FBI?
Or the witness that made some statement against the official conclusion and is suddenly hounded by the FBI, and not to bring new questions or gather new information.
Arnold Roland is a prime example - they went after his school grades and hear-say to discredit him, and hounded him repeatedly. What did he see in the window?
Then, what about when a couple of people saw the same thing from different parts of the plaza. Dark skin, light brown clothing, or even several men.
Why wouldn't they call the prisoners that saw it all from across the street at the 6th floor level. In June '64, one of Jack Ruby's attorneys, Stanly Kaufman, made a suggestion
to Commission Assistant Counsel, Leon Herbert, that the prisoners, "...had a good view of what took place..." "it might be helpful to the Commission to know that there were people
in jail who saw the actual killing." June 1964, how could they not call them? This is not conspiracy theory, yet it exists throughout this case.
And so Richard, you are smarter then that, and we know it. You should be able to bowl Martin over with facts and proof. Why can't you? - Does he have any reason not to believe you?
Then you turn criticism of your claim into Martin's conspiracy theory, that nobody heard him on the stairs and therefore Lee could not be the assassin. I think I read that right.
But that's an obvious act, because all you have to do is show the proof of your claim and it's game over for Martin - That should have been done weeks ago.
Have you ever considered that failure to be the actual proof of a conspiracy in this case?
I have been watching this over the past several weeks and it is comical. Richard, you've got to be putting us on.
You've got to be--nobody can be that dim. You claim Lee Oswald was on the sixth floor at the time of the shots and
he ran down those stairs roughly 75 sec after the last shot and nobody heard him. Nobody heard him. That part's right.
Then, when Martin questions you to show proof of your claim, you dance. Why can't you answer that question. It should be very simple.
Indeed
But then, you must know already that you can't defend the Report, and so you play the "straw man" and attempt to project Martin as doing the same thing you do every day.
Dodge ball. Just answer the question. What is the proof that Oswald was on the 6th floor at the time of the shots?
Don't expect an answer
And so Richard, you are smarter then that, and we know it. You should be able to bowl Martin over with facts and proof. Why can't you? - Does he have any reason not to believe you?
Then you turn criticism of your claim into Martin's conspiracy theory, that nobody heard him on the stairs and therefore Lee could not be the assassin. I think I read that right.
But that's an obvious act, because all you have to do is show the proof of your claim and it's game over for Martin - That should have been done weeks ago.
You keep asking good questions, that Richard will never answer.
Have you ever considered that failure to be the actual proof of a conspiracy in this case?
Thumb1:
This will go way over Richard's head, though.
-
I have been watching this over the past several weeks and it is comical. Richard, you've got to be putting us on.
You've got to be--nobody can be that dim. You claim Lee Oswald was on the sixth floor at the time of the shots and
he ran down those stairs roughly 75 sec after the last shot and nobody heard him. Nobody heard him. That part's right.
Then, when Martin questions you to show proof of your claim, you dance. Why can't you answer that question. It should be very simple.
But every part of this case is completely f'-d up, that is not demonstrated by Conspiracy Theorists but by disputing "facts" throughout this case
It is the murder of a President, yet, there is not one single piece of solid absolute proof that Lee Oswald shot JFK.
And it is incredible that so many things could be so wrong with a case of such magnitude that had to be perfect in every way.
It is completely far from it. It is a disgrace. And the HSCA Investigation made it no better, in some ways made it worse.
Nutters always say there's no one single piece of evidence, it is the totality of evidence that finds him guilty without a doubt.
You might think that if all you read was the 900 page Summary Report, But you would be fooled by the many contradictions when compared to the 26 volumes.
That is incredible after almost 60 years. Why is this not easy? - It's not a cobbled CT industry, critics could care less about conspiracy theories.
Besides, these matters of discrepancy have been around since 1964. You might say the Mauser has been resolved years ago. It wasn't even that. It was a 7.65 issue.
Can two different officers, from different locations, knew the shells were 6.5mm, go back and swear to 7.65 five times over three days. Why is that not easily resolved?
Weitzman says on the stand, "I must have been mistaken", and that's all you need to hear. When did he realize this? When did they ever show him CE 139?
It's not in the record. It's not that much to ask, but when considering all the other things that are wrong with the case, it becomes essential.
Do you think CTs make up stories? - well maybe they do, but the critic doesn't. He doesn't have to. I don't understand why you don't get that.
But then, you must know already that you can't defend the Report, and so you play the "straw man" and attempt to project Martin as doing the same thing you do every day.
Dodge ball. Just answer the question. What is the proof that Oswald was on the 6th floor at the time of the shots? Brennan? - perhaps, if you cherry pick while he embellishes.
I find it fascinating that so many people from so many walks of life are mistaken about the same thing. Doctors, medical professionals, trained police, and detectives.
All wrong about the same thing. Statements made to the FBI that directly contradict the narrative. Are these people lying? - Can you lie to the FBI?
Or the witness that made some statement against the official conclusion and is suddenly hounded by the FBI, and not to bring new questions or gather new information.
Arnold Roland is a prime example - they went after his school grades and hear-say to discredit him, and hounded him repeatedly. What did he see in the window?
Then, what about when a couple of people saw the same thing from different parts of the plaza. Dark skin, light brown clothing, or even several men.
Why wouldn't they call the prisoners that saw it all from across the street at the 6th floor level. In June '64, one of Jack Ruby's attorneys, Stanly Kaufman, made a suggestion
to Commission Assistant Counsel, Leon Herbert, that the prisoners, "...had a good view of what took place..." "it might be helpful to the Commission to know that there were people
in jail who saw the actual killing." June 1964, how could they not call them? This is not conspiracy theory, yet it exists throughout this case.
And so Richard, you are smarter then that, and we know it. You should be able to bowl Martin over with facts and proof. Why can't you? - Does he have any reason not to believe you?
Then you turn criticism of your claim into Martin's conspiracy theory, that nobody heard him on the stairs and therefore Lee could not be the assassin. I think I read that right.
But that's an obvious act, because all you have to do is show the proof of your claim and it's game over for Martin - That should have been done weeks ago.
Have you ever considered that failure to be the actual proof of a conspiracy in this case?
You share Martin's talent to be long winded but make no meaningful point. Again, my discussion with Martin on this topic has nothing to do with proving whether Oswald was the assassin. The evidence linking Oswald to the crime was compiled by the WC and is widely available. Martin knows that evidence. He doesn't accept it. It is pointless to go round and round about that when there is nothing to be added. Pay attention here. My discussion with Martin has attempted to clarify HIS position on the case. He made an affirmative statement concluding that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs." I think you would agree that if Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" after the assassination, then Oswald wasn't the assassin. Martin, however, refuses to confirm if that is his position. I would think you would encourage Martin to come out of the closet and make clear that he is a CTer since he appears to be ashamed to do so.
btw: where have Otto and Roger Collins gone?
-
The evidence linking Oswald to the crime was compiled by the WC and is widely available.
He didn’t ask you what the WC concluded about who was “linked to” the crime. He asked you for your evidence for your claim that Oswald was on the sixth floor at 12:30 and came down the stairs within 75 seconds without being seen or heard by any of the 12 people along the way. If you have none, then just say so instead of desperately trying to pin a “position” on Martin to deflect with. What Martin does or does not believe is completely irrelevant to your claims and the evidence (or lack thereof) for them.
-
I have been watching this over the past several weeks and it is comical. Richard, you've got to be putting us on.
You've got to be--nobody can be that dim. You claim Lee Oswald was on the sixth floor at the time of the shots and
he ran down those stairs roughly 75 sec after the last shot and nobody heard him. Nobody heard him. That part's right.
Then, when Martin questions you to show proof of your claim, you dance. Why can't you answer that question. It should be very simple.
But every part of this case is completely f'-d up, that is not demonstrated by Conspiracy Theorists but by disputing "facts" throughout this case
It is the murder of a President, yet, there is not one single piece of solid absolute proof that Lee Oswald shot JFK.
And it is incredible that so many things could be so wrong with a case of such magnitude that had to be perfect in every way.
It is completely far from it. It is a disgrace. And the HSCA Investigation made it no better, in some ways made it worse.
Nutters always say there's no one single piece of evidence, it is the totality of evidence that finds him guilty without a doubt.
You might think that if all you read was the 900 page Summary Report, But you would be fooled by the many contradictions when compared to the 26 volumes.
That is incredible after almost 60 years. Why is this not easy? - It's not a cobbled CT industry, critics could care less about conspiracy theories.
Besides, these matters of discrepancy have been around since 1964. You might say the Mauser has been resolved years ago. It wasn't even that. It was a 7.65 issue.
Can two different officers, from different locations, knew the shells were 6.5mm, go back and swear to 7.65 five times over three days. Why is that not easily resolved?
Weitzman says on the stand, "I must have been mistaken", and that's all you need to hear. When did he realize this? When did they ever show him CE 139?
It's not in the record. It's not that much to ask, but when considering all the other things that are wrong with the case, it becomes essential.
Do you think CTs make up stories? - well maybe they do, but the critic doesn't. He doesn't have to. I don't understand why you don't get that.
But then, you must know already that you can't defend the Report, and so you play the "straw man" and attempt to project Martin as doing the same thing you do every day.
Dodge ball. Just answer the question. What is the proof that Oswald was on the 6th floor at the time of the shots? Brennan? - perhaps, if you cherry pick while he embellishes.
I find it fascinating that so many people from so many walks of life are mistaken about the same thing. Doctors, medical professionals, trained police, and detectives.
All wrong about the same thing. Statements made to the FBI that directly contradict the narrative. Are these people lying? - Can you lie to the FBI?
Or the witness that made some statement against the official conclusion and is suddenly hounded by the FBI, and not to bring new questions or gather new information.
Arnold Roland is a prime example - they went after his school grades and hear-say to discredit him, and hounded him repeatedly. What did he see in the window?
Then, what about when a couple of people saw the same thing from different parts of the plaza. Dark skin, light brown clothing, or even several men.
Why wouldn't they call the prisoners that saw it all from across the street at the 6th floor level. In June '64, one of Jack Ruby's attorneys, Stanly Kaufman, made a suggestion
to Commission Assistant Counsel, Leon Herbert, that the prisoners, "...had a good view of what took place..." "it might be helpful to the Commission to know that there were people
in jail who saw the actual killing." June 1964, how could they not call them? This is not conspiracy theory, yet it exists throughout this case.
And so Richard, you are smarter then that, and we know it. You should be able to bowl Martin over with facts and proof. Why can't you? - Does he have any reason not to believe you?
Then you turn criticism of your claim into Martin's conspiracy theory, that nobody heard him on the stairs and therefore Lee could not be the assassin. I think I read that right.
But that's an obvious act, because all you have to do is show the proof of your claim and it's game over for Martin - That should have been done weeks ago.
Have you ever considered that failure to be the actual proof of a conspiracy in this case?
Can you lie to the FBI?
The biggest liar in this case is the head of the FBI.... J. Edgar Hoover.
Most students of this case accept the information that Hoover dumped on us as the truth, and factual information, and therefore the case is a mountain of lies.
Probably the primary piece of evidence is the mannlicher carcano rifle.....and it was the carcano that Boone and Weitzman discovered where it had been well hidden beneath the pallet of books. But there isn't one iota of evidence that the carcano was tested to accertain that it had been fired that day. The vast majority of students accept Hoover's proclamation that the carcano was fired and it is the murder weapon. That is the lie on which the entire case rests....
-
You share Martin's talent to be long winded but make no meaningful point. Again, my discussion with Martin on this topic has nothing to do with proving whether Oswald was the assassin. The evidence linking Oswald to the crime was compiled by the WC and is widely available. Martin knows that evidence. He doesn't accept it. It is pointless to go round and round about that when there is nothing to be added. Pay attention here. My discussion with Martin has attempted to clarify HIS position on the case. He made an affirmative statement concluding that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs." I think you would agree that if Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" after the assassination, then Oswald wasn't the assassin. Martin, however, refuses to confirm if that is his position. I would think you would encourage Martin to come out of the closet and make clear that he is a CTer since he appears to be ashamed to do so.
btw: where have Otto and Roger Collins gone?
Again, my discussion with Martin on this topic has nothing to do with proving whether Oswald was the assassin.
BS:
You claimed Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he came down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot. I asked you to provide the evidence for those claims and that's exactly what the discussion was all about. You just ran away from it and started a song and dance routine that now has lasted more than two months.
The evidence linking Oswald to the crime was compiled by the WC and is widely available. Martin knows that evidence. He doesn't accept it.
There is nothing to accept. There never was. The only thing the WC did was assume that the rifle found on the 6th floor belonged to - and was in the possesion - of Oswald and for them that was enough to conclude that Oswald must have been on the 6th floor. I've asked you to explain how the rifle being on the 6th floor, even if it belonged to Oswald, is evidence of Oswald himself being on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and you failed to answer.
Pay attention here.
Arrogant prick!
My discussion with Martin has attempted to clarify HIS position on the case.
My position was clarified a long time ago. It just goes way over your head.
He made an affirmative statement concluding that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs." I think you would agree that if Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" after the assassination, then Oswald wasn't the assassin. Martin, however, refuses to confirm if that is his position.
That is an utter lie
I would think you would encourage Martin to come out of the closet and make clear that he is a CTer since he appears to be ashamed to do so.
btw: where have Otto and Roger Collins gone?
Back to this pathetic crap again? Boy, you really must be desperate.
-
I have been watching this over the past several weeks and it is comical. Richard, you've got to be putting us on.
You've got to be--nobody can be that dim. You claim Lee Oswald was on the sixth floor at the time of the shots and
he ran down those stairs roughly 75 sec after the last shot and nobody heard him. Nobody heard him. That part's right.
Then, when Martin questions you to show proof of your claim, you dance. Why can't you answer that question. It should be very simple.
You ought to ask why Martin dismisses Sandra Styles recollection that Adams and her first went to the passenger elevator before using the back stairs. Adams confirmed thru testimony that she saw Lovelady on the first floor. She later claimed otherwise decades later to the manipulative CT Ernest who, unlike the WC, never published complete transcripts. The Stroud Letter is so ambiguous and hearsay, it's open to multiple interpretations.
But every part of this case is completely f'-d up, that is not demonstrated by Conspiracy Theorists but by disputing "facts" throughout this case
Yet no different from the majority of serious crime cases where most of the evidence is circumstantial (as opposed to the "direct evidence" of the Tippit Murder). Circumstantial evidence is never rejected by the court and the totality of evidence is argued by the prosecution through reasonable inference. Law schools and the courts have no issue with any of this; both sides have a chance to introduce circumstantial evidence and draw their own reasonable inference.
-
You ought to ask why Martin dismisses Sandra Styles recollection that Adams and her first went to the passenger elevator before using the back stairs. Adams confirmed thru testimony that she saw Lovelady on the first floor. She later claimed otherwise decades later to the manipulative CT Ernest who, unlike the WC, never published complete transcripts. The Stroud Letter is so ambiguous and hearsay, it's open to multiple interpretations.
Yet no different from the majority of serious crime cases where most of the evidence is circumstantial (as opposed to the "direct evidence" of the Tippit Murder). Circumstantial evidence is never rejected by the court and the totality of evidence is argued by the prosecution through reasonable inference. Law schools and the courts have no issue with any of this; both sides have a chance to introduce circumstantial evidence and draw their own reasonable inference.
You ought to ask why Martin dismisses Sandra Styles recollection that Adams and her first went to the passenger elevator before using the back stairs.
If he did that, the answer would be that I don't dismiss anything, but unlike Jerry I don't cherry pick only the statements I like. Instead I look at the overall picture. Styles made all sorts of contradictory statements and in one of them even admitted that Adams' version could well be correct. Adams, on the other hand, has been consistent in her story from day 1 and it's backed up by what Dorothy Garner has said.
Adams confirmed thru testimony that she saw Lovelady on the first floor. She later claimed otherwise decades later to the manipulative CT Ernest who, unlike the WC, never published complete transcripts.
First of all, the WC reserved the right to alter testimony. It's on the record. All you need to do is look it up. Secondly, on 11/24/63 Victoria Adams told FBI agents Hardin and Scott that "she and her friend ran immediately to the back of the building to where the stairs were located and ran down the stairs". That's first day witness testimony! In the same FD 302 report she also tells the agents that she didn't see anybody and explained how she and Styles went from the back of the building to the front and what happened along the way.
Thirdly, when Barry Ernest approached Adams, after searching for her for years, she wasn't even aware that the Lovelady/Shelley reference was in her testimony and she couldn't explain how it got there. You can call Barry Ernest manipulative, but you have no evidence whatsoever that he manipulated anything. There is however a clear indication that the WC tried to manipulate the entire girls on the stairs matter, by (1) ignoring the Stroud letter completely, by (2) not calling Adams and/or Styles to the reconstruction and (3) by clearly trying to influence Lovelady's testimony prior to it being given. Why else would Lovelady bring up Vickie Adams without being asked?
Mr. LOVELADY - Through that double door that we in the morning when we get there we raised. There's a fire door and they have two wooden doors between it.
Mr. BALL - You came in through the first floor?
Mr. LOVELADY - Right.
Mr. BALL - Who did you see in the first floor?
Mr. LOVELADY - I saw a girl but I wouldn't swear to it it's Vickie.
Mr. BALL - Who is Vickie?
Mr. LOVELADY - The girl that works for Scott, Foresman.
Mr. BALL - What is her full name?
Mr. LOVELADY - I wouldn't know.
Mr. BALL - Vickie Adams?
Mr. LOVELADY - I believe so.
Mr. BALL - Would you say it was Vickie you saw?
Mr. LOVELADY - I couldn't swear.
Shelley denied seeing Adams and Styles and Lovelady "wouldn't swear to it it's Vickie", so all we have is Adams' testimony of which there are several versions.
The Stroud Letter is so ambiguous and hearsay, it's open to multiple interpretations.
Here's Jerry, who just complained about the ambivalent statements of Styles being dismissed out of hand (which did not happen) and who now dismisses the evidence provided by the Stroud letter (a communication of a United States Attorney to the Chief Counsel of the Warren Commission) out of hand. Wow!
Dorothy Garner is on record saying that she followed the girls out of the office and although she did not see them go down the stairs, she could hear them on the stairs, before Truly and the police man came up. There is no ambiguity there. What destroys Jerry's wishful thinking scenario is the fact that Styles was photographed in front of the main entrance of the TSBD at 12:36 and re-entered the building before it was locked down by police. In order to get to that location, within less than 6 minutes after the shots, Styles and Adams must have left the 4th floor no later than about a minute after the shots. The mere fact that Truly and Baker did not run into them when they got on the stairs at the first floor means that the girls must have cleared the stairs in the time it took Truly and Baker to get to the entrance of the stairs, which is less than a minute after the shots.
Shelley and Lovelady both confirmed in their testimony that they were at the front of the building when the shots were fired. From there they ran to the railway yard (where Adams most likely saw them) and did not return to the building until about five minutes later. That's at best a minute earlier than Styles was photographed at the front entrance. There is no physical way that Adams and Styles could have encountered Shelley and Lovelady inside the building!
Jerry can twist and turn all he wants, but those are the facts and he can not offer an alternative scenario that fits all those facts. Past experience has shown that he won't even try, as it is far easier to just make some bogus claims then to defend and explain them!
Yet no different from the majority of serious crime cases where most of the evidence is circumstantial (as opposed to the "direct evidence" of the Tippit Murder). Circumstantial evidence is never rejected by the court and the totality of evidence is argued by the prosecution through reasonable inference. Law schools and the courts have no issue with any of this; both sides have a chance to introduce circumstantial evidence and draw their own reasonable inference.
A pretty meaningless observation that tries to kick in an already open door. As case based on circumstantial is the weakest case there is. It leaves open the possibility of misinterpretation of evidence, speculation and assumptions. Nobody is rejecting circumstantial evidence but the Court understands that both sides will provide their own interpretation of the evidence that they are hardly ever the same.
In this case, there is no physical evidence or otherwise whatsoever to base a circumstantial case on re Oswald being on the 6th floor and coming down the stairs within 75 seconds after the last shot. All the WC did, rather cowardly, is "conclude" that the rifle found on the 6th floor belonged to Oswald and was in his possession (already two assumptions) and because of that Oswald must have been on the 6th floor and must have come down the stairs unnoticed (two more assumptions). The presence of the rifle - even if it did belong to Oswald - does not even begin to prove that Oswald himself was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired.