There are people out there straight-facedly saying Trump is unfairly accused...

As I suspected...you lack the backbone to answer the incredibly simple yes/no question that forms the basis of this thread. The thread specifically created to deal with this subject - the ridiculous claims of those who believe Rowland invented a man with a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD building and, by some miracle, happened to be right.

I understand why you won't just come out and answer a simple yes or no.
You won't do it because of how ridiculous it would make you look...and even you have your limits.

And I will debate you about any aspect of this anytime. As I say, watching you fall apart never gets old.

What I think is immaterial.

This is the truest thing you have ever posted.

Dan O’Meara:
I had to start this thread in response to something a Nutter posted on another thread insinuating that Arnold Rowland made up seeing the man with the rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD building.
Of all the crazy things the Warren Commission has forced Nutters to believe this has to be right up there.

Who posted it? Why so vague?

Every thread subject is a debate. You do not seem to know that. It is in the heading. Maybe that is why you do so poorly at it. You don't realize where you are at.

You are currently posting on this site.

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate


Here I will read it to you. ...AND DEBATE.

For those who might be interested, I have uploaded a substantially revised and expanded version of my article "Faulty Evidence: Problems with the Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald.".

The new edition examines the following subjects:

-- Oswald and the alleged murder weapon.

-- The ordering of the alleged murder weapon.

-- The paper bag, the blanket, and the fingerprints on some of the boxes near the sixth-floor window.

-- The shirt fibers found on the Carcano rifle.

-- The trigger-guard fingerprints and the dubious claim of Scalice and Powdrill that they are Oswald's prints.

-- The suspicious latent palm print that Lt. Day belatedly claimed he saw and lifted.

-- The alleged ballistic evidence, especially CE 543 (the dented shell).

-- Scientific evidence that Oswald did not shoot JFK.

-- The disclosure of the results of the NAA testing of the paraffin cast made of Oswald's right cheek.

-- PSE polygraph analysis of Oswald's declarations of innocence, and a response to DeGrilla's misleading attack on the PSE evidence.

-- Indications of fraud in the backyard rifle photos.

-- Oswald's marksmanship in the Marine Corps.

-- What Oswald's former Marine colleagues and fellow Minsk gun club members said about his shooting ability (that he was a "poor" and "extremely poor" shot).

-- The alleged lone-gunman shooting feat and the rifle tests done by the WC, CBS, and the HSCA.

-- Oswald's whereabouts before, during, and immediately after the shooting.

-- Witnesses and the police lineups.

-- Howard Brennan.

-- Prayer Man.

-- The single-bullet theory (SBT).

-- Guinn's NAA and the SBT.

-- Problems with the case against Oswald in the Tippit shooting.

-- The wedding ring and cash allegedly left on Marina Oswald’s nightstand on the morning of the assassination.

-- Oswald's post-assassination actions from 12:30 to 1:15.

-- The claim that Oswald snuck into the Texas Theatre without paying.

-- The arrest of Oswald in the Texas Theatre.

-- The Robert Baer team's research.

-- Howard Donahue's research.

Your entire article is nothing more than a litany of excuses for dismissing all that damning evidence against Oswald. If your excuses carried any weight, you should be able to put together a plausible alternative narrative that takes into account all that evidence including your pathetic excuses. We both know that no such plausible alternative narrative is possible or somebody would have come up with one by now. It's been almost 63 years since the assassination and no one has come close to developing a scenario that explains the entire body of evidence. CTs are in the business of explaining away the evidence as your article demonstrates.

After I first began to study the JFK case, I came across conspiracy theorist Harrison Edward Livingstone's rejection of the HSCA's acoustical evidence. When he cited the alleged Decker "hold everything" crosstalk, I didn't know enough to see any problem with it.

However, when Livingstone stressed that one of his reasons for rejecting the acoustical evidence was that the shots could not be heard with the naked ear on the dictabelt, my acoustical training led me too see a potential red flag. I knew that if the DPD radio system included Automatic Gain Control (AGC) circuitry, the AGC would have prevented the shots from being recorded loudly enough to be heard with the naked ear. 

This was my first hint that the case against the acoustical evidence might not be nearly as strong as "everyone" seemed to think it was.

However, I remained skeptical of the acoustical evidence until I obtained a copy of the HSCA volumes and read the testimony and reports of the committee's acoustical scientists.

When I later read the NRC/NAS panel's critique of the acoustical evidence, one of the first things I realized was that the panel did not even address several key items of evidence that the BBN and Queens College acoustical scientists had documented.

I was like, "Wait a minute. How can you guys claim to have refuted the acoustical evidence when you haven't even mentioned some of the key scientific findings that support it?" I was referring, of course, to the gunfire N-waves, complete with muzzle blasts and muzzle-blast echoes in the correct timing and order, and the gunfire windshield distortions on the dictabelt.

I also recognized that the panel had acknowledged that their own calculations showed there was a 93% probability that the timing-movement correlations identified by the BBN scientists occurred because the tape recorded gunfire in Dealey Plaza. I noticed that the panel made this admission as obliquely as possible and oddly said nothing about its obvious importance.

I further recognized that the panel had acknowledged that their own calculations showed there was a 77.7% probability that the dictabelt's 144.9 impulse pattern was caused by gunfire from the grassy knoll. Here, too, I noticed that the panel made this admission as obliquely as possible and said nothing about its obvious importance.

I thought, "Ok, 77.7% isn't as high as '95% or higher,' but it's still pretty high." This, of course, was before I learned that the panel's calculations included two outright errors, and that the "95% or higher" probability was actually closer to 99%.

I wondered how the panel could dismiss the acoustical evidence given these admissions and given their failure to address several key scientific findings that supported the acoustical evidence.