British scholar Anthony Summers was impressed with the evidence that indicates Oswald was not on the sixth floor during the shooting,

Nobody who thinks Anthony Summers is a "scholar" is somebody who should be taken seriously.

If MTG considers somebody a scholar, it's a good bet that person is a bozo.

Her estrangement seemed to me to start right after the assassination and not years later when she became a conspiracist. She was isolated, afraid, dependent on others and both Robert and Marguerite, who she had to lean on for support, disliked the Paines intensely. I think they told simply told her not to trust the Paines, to stay away from them, they were using the assassination for their own interests and not hers.

Marguerite said this about Ruth: "The proud and perfect Quaker…I keep saying she is a fraud and liar…I can hardly read this woman’s thoughts. She is evil, and selfish and the cause of it all. You ought to be horse-whipped."

Robert particularly didn't like Michael either. He thought Michael lied about not knowing about the rifle in the garage. And he wrote in his book, "Lee," that Ruth and Marina's friendship "apparently contributed to Lee’s feeling of rejection and failure."

I think it was a personality and cultural clash as well. Whether the assassination happened or not they were not going to get along. They came from two different worlds. Lots of wheels turning here.

Did Marguerite and Robert suspect that the Paines were KGB agents?

Come to think of it, wasn't Michael Paine's father a Trotskyist, and didn't CIA's Clare Edward Petty determine by reading some WW II VENONA decrypts that another important person in Oswald's life, George DeMohrenschildt, was very probably a long-term KGB "illegal"?

Interestingly, KGB Major Pyotr Deriabin, who defected to the U.S. in 1954, said that Marina had to be at least a low-level KGB informant to be allowed to marry her Handsome Prince Charming and leave The Worker's Paradise with him.

Hmm.

As if any place other than the sixth floor sniper's nest is viable, given the forensic evidence available.

You know this claim is erroneous, but you just keep repeating it anyway. I've refuted this claim in several replies to you, and each time you've either summarily dismissed or offered lame explanations for the mountain of forensic evidence that points away from Oswald (the fact that the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like the kind of ammo that Oswald supposedly used, the fact that the head damage indicates the bullet was traveling at a high velocity [as even the Clark Panel noted, whereas the alleged murder weapon was a low-velocity rifle], the angles of the rear head shot and of the back-wound shot, the front-to-back fragmentation pattern seen on the skull x-rays, the small back-of-head fragments that could only be ricochet fragments, the evidence of a frontal entry wound on the skull x-rays, the fact that the back wound had no exit point, the evidence that the throat wound was an entry wound, etc.).

Which indicates they had no special powers of audio perception and could be fooled as to where the gunshots originated from.

Oh, of course. But, let me guess: The people who thought shots came from the TSBD, well, they had "special powers of audio perception," while the dozens of people who heard shots from the knoll were all "mistaken," right?

And, as you know (because I've pointed it out to you), a number of witnesses saw gun smoke coming from a spot behind the fence on the knoll during the shooting, and a small cloud of smoke can be seen hanging over a spot near the fence on the knoll in the Wiegman film.
 

All those people rushed to the GK and not one of them saw a gunman.

Wrong. Why do you keep repeating claims that you know are false? 

And what about J.C. Price, who watched the motorcade from the Terminal Annex Building in Dealey Plaza and who saw a man running from the fence into the railroad yard right after the shooting?

Nor did Lee Bowers who was watching from an elevated position from behind the GK.

Because, as Bowers explained, his attention was diverted to the bank of the knoll when a patrolman left the motorcade and roared up the knoll.

Speaking of Bowers, before the shooting, he observed two unfamiliar men standing on top of the knoll at the edge of the parking lot, within 10 or 15 feet of each other: "one man, middle-aged or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about mid-twenties, in either a plaid shirt or a plaid coat or jacket." Impressively, the HSCA's acoustical scientists determined from the police dictabelt that a shot was fired from a location just a few feet from the area that Bowers described.

Bowers also observed three cars conduct what clearly appeared to be a recon of the area behind the knoll, one at a time, in the 35 minutes leading up to the assassination. One of the drivers appeared to be talking into a microphone. No federal or local police drove in the parking lot before the shooting.

During the shooting, Bowers said something unusual occurred where the two men were located: "there was some unusual occurrence -- a flash of light or smoke or something which caused me to feel like something out of the ordinary had occurred there."

As for the smell of gunpowder, the people who reported that were on Elm St. when they smelled it. Unless you want to argue the shooter fired from Elm St., that indicates the smell originated from a location some distance from Elm St. You would have us believe the gunpowder residue they smelled could travel to Elm St. from behind the wooden fence but not from the sniper's nest. A really illogical take on those reports.

I've answered this nonsense several times now, as have others, but you just keep repeating it. The only "really illogical take" is yours. It is vacuous to argue that the scent of gunpowder "originated some distance from Elm St." That's not how it works. The exact opposite is true: the pungent odor of gunpowder must have originated on the knoll in order to be detected by witnesses who were on or near the knoll during or right after the shooting, especially given the fact that several witnesses saw apparent gun smoke on the knoll and that a small cloud of smoke is visible above the fence on the Wiegman film.

Do you just not care that some people are bound to notice that you constantly repeat arguments that have been answered several times in previous replies? You seem to be hoping that readers won't read any of those previous replies and thus won't realize that you've been corrected on those arguments and are repeating them anyway.

 

Who cares? You're not about to start suggesting that Ruth Paine was involved in the assassination conspiracy, are you?

Marina's estrangement with Ruth seemed to start right after the assassination and not years later when she became a conspiracist. She was isolated, afraid, dependent on others and both Robert and Marguerite, who she had to lean on for support, disliked the Paines intensely. I think they told simply told her not to trust the Paines, to stay away from them, they were using the assassination for their own interests and not hers.

Marguerite said this about Ruth: "The proud and perfect Quaker…I keep saying she is a fraud and liar…I can hardly read this woman’s thoughts. She is evil, and selfish and the cause of it all. You ought to be horse-whipped."

Robert particularly didn't like Michael either. He thought Michael lied about not knowing about the rifle in the garage. And he wrote in his book "Lee" that Ruth and Marina's friendship "apparently contributed to Lee’s feeling of rejection and failure."

I think it was a personality and cultural clash as well. Whether the assassination happened or not they were not going to get along. They came from two different worlds. Lots of wheels turning here.

British scholar Anthony Summers was impressed with the evidence that indicates Oswald was not on the sixth floor during the shooting, noting, among other things, that Oswald correctly described Junior Jarman and Harold Norman as walking through the first-floor lunchroom at around noon, strongly indicating that he was indeed in that lunchroom at noon. If one wants to argue that Oswald made a lucky guess, such a guess would have been amazingly lucky indeed since 75 people worked in the Book Depository. Says Summers, 

My discovery of Sarah Stanton seeing Oswald waiting on the 2nd Floor staircase landing for Mrs Reid to clear the lady employees out of the 2nd Floor Lunch Room means that Oswald could have known about Jarman and Norman entering the rear loading dock entrance when he saw or heard them going up the elevator to the 5th Floor...It is possible that Oswald did not like being caught by Stanton and went down to the 1st Floor right after his encounter with Stanton and saw Jarman and Norman at that time, however Oswald definitely went back up to the 2nd Floor Lunch Room that Mrs Reid was clearing out for him because we know Carolyn Arnold saw him there alone eating lunch like Oswald told Hosty...

I don't trust Summers because Summers ignored Earl Golz's discovery that Carolyn Arnold told FBI 12:25 in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room...Summers stuck with the FBI's criminal alteration of what Carolyn Arnold told them and cannot be trusted...Summers insisted on 12:15 in the Lobby when Carolyn Arnold herself emphasized that she never said that and that she told FBI 12:25 in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room...The latter being confirmed by Carolyn Arnold's March 1964 FBI statement that she was allowed to proofread that said 12:25 in plain writing...Not only did FBI alter Carolyn Arnold's statement but they also quoted Sarah Stanton as saying she never saw Oswald that day when the truth was she had a decisive witnessing of Oswald that cracks the case...While calling itself a credible research forum The Education Forum remains dedicated to ignoring this key new witnessing and most important evidence discovery of our generation and vindictively banning its source...