Which part is dumb?

Which part is not?

You know this claim is erroneous, but you just keep repeating it anyway.

I keep repeating it because it is the truth.

I've refuted this claim in several replies to you,

Disputing something isn't the same as refuting it. You do lots of the former and none of the latter.

and each time you've either summarily dismissed or offered lame explanations for the mountain of forensic evidence that points away from Oswald

None of the forensic evidence points away from Oswald. That is a silly claim you make which you can't support.

(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.).

These are all claims you have made that you couldn't support if your life depended on it.

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?

The people who said the shots came from the GK are corroborated the three spent shells found in the 6th floor sniper's nest and the murder weapon found elsewhere on the same floor. The are also support by eyewitnesses who saw a shooter in the 6th floor sniper's nest. There is zero forensic evidence of a shooter from the GK and zero eyewitnesses who saw a shooter anywhere on the GK either in front of or behind the fence. He keep taking big swings and you keep whiffing. You've got nothing.

And, as you know (because I've pointed it out to you),

I know you have pointed out lots of things that are simply BS.

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.

Do you think your GK shooter was firing an 18th century musket because that is the only type of firearm that would emit enough smoke to be seen. The fact that you don't recognize this is further evidence how really, really bad at weighing evidence.

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

I know the things I say are true. You wish you could honestly say the same about your claims.

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?

A man running from the fence to the railroad yard is not evidence of a shooter. That is nothing more than a wild assumption on your part but since you have no forensic evidence and no witnesses to support your claim of a shooter on the GK, wild assumptions are all you have. If you dispute that, tell us:

1. What forensic evidence is there of a shooter on the GK.

2. Name an eyewitness to a shooter on the GK.

Can't do it? I didn't think so.

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.

The patrolman didn't come up the GK until after the shots were fired. There was nothing that would have distracted Bowers at the time the shots were fired. Here is how Bowers described what he saw and heard DURING the shooting:

Mr. BALL - When you heard the sound, which way were you looking?
Mr. BOWERS - At the moment I heard the sound, I was looking directly towards the area---at the moment of the first shot, as close as my recollection serves, the car was out of sight behind this decorative masonry wall in the area.
Mr. BALL - And when you heard the second and third shot, could you see the car?
Mr. BOWERS - No; at the moment of the shots, I could---I do not think that it was in sight. It came in sight immediately following the last shot.
Mr. BALL - Did you see any activity in this high ground above Elm after the shot?
Mr. BOWERS - At the time of the shooting there seemed to be some commotion, and immediately following there was a motorcycle policeman who shot nearly all of the way to the top of the incline.
Mr. BALL - On his motorcycle?
Mr. BOWERS - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Did he come by way of Elm Street?
Mr. BOWERS - He was part of the motorcade and had left it for some reason, which I did not know.
Mr. BALL - He came up---
Mr. BOWERS - He came almost to the top and I believe abandoned his motorcycle for a moment and then got on it and proceeded, I don't know
Mr. BALL - How did he get up?
Mr. BOWERS - He just shot up over the curb and up.
Mr. BALL - He didn't come then by way of Ell, which dead ends there?
Mr. BOWERS - No; he left the motorcade and came up the incline on the motorcycle.
Mr. BALL - Was his motorcycle directed toward any particular people?
Mr. BOWERS - He came up into this area where there are some trees, and where I had described the two men were in the general vicinity of this.
Mr. BALL - Were the two men there at the time?
Mr. BOWERS - I--as far as I know, one of them was. The other I could not say.
The darker dressed man was too hard to distinguish from the trees. The white shirt, yes; I think he was.
Mr. BALL - When you said there was a commotion, what do you mean by that? What did it look like to you when you were looking at the commotion?
Mr. BOWERS - I just am unable to describe rather than it was something out of the ordinary, a sort of milling around, but something occurred in this particular spot which was out of the ordinary, which attracted my eye for some reason, which I could not identify.

Mr. BALL - You couldn't describe it?
Mr. BOWERS - Nothing that I could pinpoint as having happened that---

Nothing about seeing a shooter on his side of the fence. No mention of seeing a shooter anywhere. So much for your star witness.

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.

Seeing unfamiliar men is not the same as seeing a shooter. Another swing and a miss.

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.

Tell us how that is evidence of a shooter on the GK.

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."

Still no evidence of a gunshot. Is this really the best you can do? Do you think this is more compelling than witnesses who saw a shooter in the sniper's nest, the presence of spent shells at the location the witnesses saw a shooter, and a rifle found nearby that was positively matched to the only two bullets recovered from the shooting. Given how bad you are at weighing evidence, you probably do.

I've answered this nonsense several times now, as have others,

Your answers made no sense.

but you just keep repeating it.

Because you keep giving silly answers.

The only "really illogical take" is yours. It is vacuous to argue that the scent of gunpowder "originated some distance from Elm St."

Do you think it originated 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.

A perfect example of you asserting something you cannot prove.

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.

It must suck being you. You've been at this for the better part of four decades, maybe longer for all I know, and all your efforts haven't amounted to a hill of beans.

Have a nice day!

You've misread Summers. Here's what he says about Carolyn Arnold and her FBI statement:

In her discussion with Earl Golz Carolyn Arnold insisted she said 12:25...That was reinforced by her March 1964 FBI statement that listed in plain writing "12:25"...

FBI acted criminally and with intent when it criminally altered both Arnold's and Stanton's key witnessing of Oswald in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room...

FBI displayed what Jim DiEugenio describes as a "Consciousness Of Guilt"...

Better than being stuck with imaginary policemen wearing only one glove, an imaginary getaway car and HUUUUGE gates!

      And why do you believe that the Sixth Floor Museum has Not released that last 1/2 of the Darnell Film? You know, that last 1/2 that gives us a very good look at the Bogus DPD Motorcycle Cop walking across the train yard and toward/down the Elm St Extension. We are close to 2 yrs now between the release of the 1st half of the Darnell Film and the continued radio silence outta the Sixth Floor Museum.   

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...

You've misread Summers. Here's what he says about Carolyn Arnold and her FBI statement:

In 1963, Carolyn Arnold was secretary to the vice president of the Book Depository.14 An FBI report, omitted from the Warren Commission Report, said Arnold was standing in front of the Depository waiting for the motorcade when she “thought she caught a fleeting glimpse of Lee Harvey Oswald standing in the hallway . . . on the first floor.”

When the author contacted Arnold in 1978 to get a firsthand account, she was surprised to hear how she had been reported by the FBI. Her spontaneous reaction, that the FBI had misquoted her, came before the author explained to her the importance of Oswald’s whereabouts at given moments. Arnold’s recollection of what she observed was clear -- having spotted Oswald had been her one personal contribution to the record of that memorable day. As secretary to the company vice president she knew Oswald; he had been in the habit of coming to her for change. What she claimed she told the FBI is very different from the Bureau report of her comments.

“About a quarter of an hour before the assassination,” she said in 1978, “I went into the lunchroom on the second floor for a moment. . . . Oswald was sitting in one of the booth seats on the right-hand side of the room as you go in. He was alone as usual and appeared to be having lunch. I did not speak to him, but I recognized him clearly.”

Arnold had some reason to remember having gone into the lunchroom. She was pregnant at the time and had a craving for a glass of water. She also recalled, in 1978, that this was “about 12:15. It may have been slightly later." (Not In Your Lifetime, pp. 91-92)