OK Mr Brown...

We'll have to accept your version that Ruby was there to bring the busy police officers cold cut sandwiches...

The Dallas Police knew Oswald was CIA...They had run ins with him before where they knew his affiliation...


Mr Brown:  Was Ruby there at the Press Conference when Oswald was there?

And if he was does that make your weak gotcha point meaningless?...

Could Ruby have looked Oswald in the eye then?...


(Under Iler and Simkin Brown has full access to The Education Forum)...
 

Now you're creating a straw man argument.  Who said anything about cold cuts?

The bottom line is that it is foolish to claim that Ruby corrected Wade as to the name of the organization so that he "could look Oswald in the eye".  It is foolish because Oswald was not present.  I see you skipped right over that point.

I'm not trying to be rude to you, as you've never been rude to me.  I'm just correcting your falsehood; one which you should have already been aware of before making such a thread.

OK Mr Brown...

We'll have to accept your version that Ruby was there to bring the busy police officers cold cut sandwiches...

The Dallas Police knew Oswald was CIA...They had run ins with him before where they knew his affiliation...


Mr Brown:  Was Ruby there at the Press Conference when Oswald was there?

And if he was does that make your weak gotcha point meaningless?...

Could Ruby have looked Oswald in the eye then?...


(Under Iler and Simkin Brown has full access to The Education Forum)...
 

   There are two main reasons why Ruby did this...

   First was to accent the sheep-dipping of patsy Oswald in order to make him look like a true communist/Castro sympathizer...

   Second was to look Oswald in the eye and remind him to maintain character in his his role playing as a crazed communist...And that one of the plotters could get right next to him to remind him...

To look Oswald in the eye and remind him?  No.

This correction as to the name of the organization occurred while Wade was talking to some of the reporters AFTER the midnight press conference had concluded and AFTER Oswald had already been led away.  Oswald was not present.  Good grief.

Also, multiple voices correct Wade as to the name of the organization, not just one.  Were these others also part of the plot to frame the patsy?

You should try a little better to have your facts straight before creating an entire thread.

Lone Gunman THEORY.

Autistic President THEORY.

It’s right in front of your eyes.

They’re not THEORIES.  They’re FACTS.

[SNIP]

JohnM

You are the poster child for cherry-picking and making dubious assumptions.

I notice you said nothing about the footage of the 1966 Charles Whitman shooting in Texas. I notice you made no attempt to explain the smoke seen in the Wiegman film. I notice you made no attempt to explain the puffs of smoke seen by six witnesses during the shooting.

Here's one short segment of footage of the Charles Whitman shooting that shows visible puffs of smoke:

Footage of Charles Whitman shooting, 01

Here's a much longer segment that shows numerous visible puffs of smoke:

Footage of Charles Whitman shooting, 01 (1:09 to 1:33)

Or, check out this footage of the SLA shootout with police in LA in 1974 that shows obvious gun smoke that hangs in the air for quite some time -- the camera pans away from the large cloud of gun smoke, but it is obvious the smoke would have remained visible for some time if the camera had kept filming it:

Footage of 1974 SLA shootout (0:05 to 0:09)

In an article about the 1970 shooting of two college students at Jackson State University, a Baltimore Sun article noted that "the gun smoke was thick" (https://www.baltimoresun.com/2000/05/15/an-overshadowed-anniversary-killings-two-people-were-killed-by-police-gunfire-at-jackson-state-college-in-mississippi-30-years-ago-but-few-besides-those-directly-affected-remember/).

In describing a 2024 shooting at a high school graduation ceremony in LA, one witness said they "could see the gun smoke":

You could see the gun smoke, gun shells hitting the floor, and then they kind of peeled off. (https://komonews.com/news/nation-world/la-graduation-ceremony-for-at-promise-high-schoolers-ends-in-brawl-police-say-los-angeles-california-operation-graduation-juvenile-court-students-education-crisis-in-the-classroom)

A CBS News report about a 2024 shooting at a religious gathering in Philadephia notes that one witness said they "cold see the gun smoke because it was very close":

"I was like, it's just another beautiful day and gunshots started ringing and you could see the gun smoke because it was very close," Fareed Abdullah, who witnessed the shooting, said. (https://www.cbsnews.com/philadelphia/news/shooting-eid-al-fitr-west-philadelphia-community-leaders-reaction/)

A Los Angeles Times article about the 2016 terrorist attack in San Bernadino, CA, notes that "the gun smoke made it difficult to see":

In the chaos, one round pierced a fire sprinkler pipe, causing water to gush from the ceiling. The gun smoke made it difficult to see. Many got out the doors, and escaped outside or barricaded themselves in other rooms in the building. (https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-san-bernardino-terror--20160909-snap-story.html)

I personally saw Army M-16 rifles emit visible puffs of smoke many times on Army rifle ranges. You can find numerous referenes to gun smoke, thick gun smoke, gun smoke impeding visibility, etc., in soldier accounts from the Korean War and the Vietnam War. 

BTW, did you ever retract your howler that the HSCA PEP found "massive parallax" in their analysis of the backyard rifle photos? (In fact, the PEP found that the parallax between the photos was so small it could only be detected with “computer-assisted photographic evaluation” and with “examination under magnification with magnifiers and microscopes.”)