S. M. Holland's "Smoke" on the Grassy Knoll

[Tom Graves]

One can only wonder how many evil, evil Deep State bad guys and evil, evil Deep State bad gals were involved in the planning, the patsy-ing, the forging and planting of all of the Oswald-incriminating evidence, the shooting, the getting-away, the altering of all of the photos, films and X-rays, and the all-important (and evidently ongoing!) cover up!

[John Corbett]

     So a prosecuting attorney proffers to the jury that the Proof of a defendant being at the murder scene is, "he put himself there"? That's, "My Cousin Vinny" material.
     It's Oswald's rifle, so naturally there would be traces of his shirt, prints, skin, etc on the rifle. So what? Same goes for anything connected to the blanket.
     I believe that Oswald was supposed to establish his alibi by being inside the lunchroom at lunchtime. When Officer Baker confronted Oswald so quickly, Oswald knew something had gone wrong. Maybe Oswald had that false ID on him, and he thought he was lucky that Officer Baker did Not pat him down? So he split via the Huge Gates.

Any jury of consisting of people with common sense when presented with the evidence I listed would have no trouble coming to the conclusion that Oswald was the assassin and have no reasonable doubt about that. It is only fanatical Oswald deniers who try to create doubt where none exists. The only plausible scenario that takes into account all of the evidence I presented is that Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK. Every piece of evidence I listed is probative of Oswald's guilt. You might be able to come up with an unlikely theoretical alternative explanation for any one piece of evidence, but when you have to gravitate for the least likely explanation for every piece of evidence I presented, plausibility goes out the window. There is no plausible argument for Oswald's not being the gunman that takes into account, the entire body of evidence.

If you dispute what I just wrote, present us with an alternative. Explain how Oswald's FRESH palm print got on the underside of the barrel which would only be exposed when the rifle was disassembled. Explain why the only fibers on the butt plate of the rifle were the ones from the shirt he was wearing that day. Explain why only his prints were on the rifle bag. Explain how fibers matching his blanket were found on the bag. Explain why his fingerprints were on the boxes stacked by the window oriented as they would be if he was looking down Elm St.

While we're on the subject of evidence, what evidence do you have that "Oswald was supposed to establish his alibi by being inside the lunchroom at lunchtime". What evidence do you have that "Oswald knew something was wrong". Were these the best excuses you could come up with to explain why Oswald did so many things that day that made him look guilty? You continue to dodge every challenge I've made to you to present evidence of your beliefs. 62 years of futility and the conspiracy hobbyists keep flailing away.

[Royell Storing]

  Being in the lunchroom did Not make Oswald "look guilty". Like I said, I believe he was involved. As to his being a shooter, why use your own rifle, carry it across the 6th floor, and then hide it there? You believe he planned bringing the rifle to work, constructed the sniper's nest, fires the shots and then goes into scramble mode after that? This doesn't fit.

[John Corbett]

  Being in the lunchroom did Not make Oswald "look guilty". Like I said, I believe he was involved. As to his being a shooter, why use your own rifle, carry it across the 6th floor, and then hide it there? You believe he planned bringing the rifle to work, constructed the sniper's nest, fires the shots and then goes into scramble mode after that? This doesn't fit.

Of course it fits. It was the only option available to Oswald once he made the decision to kill JFK. We'll never know why he made that decision but we know that he did. It isn't necessary to know why. It was a crime of opportunity. Oswald was dealt a golden opportunity to become infamous but his options were limited. He had to take the shot when it was presented to him using the only tools he had. He smuggled the rifle into the TSBD. He could not have escaped the TSBD if he took his rifle with him. He had to leave it behind.

I'm not sure he even had to construct sniper's nest. A crew was laying a new floor and a lot of boxes had already been moved to the section of the 6th floor. He could have just used what was there or he could have built the wall of boxes himself. We don't know and we don't need to know. He really didn't need that wall of boxes because at the time of the shooting, he was the only one on the 6th floor. Bonnie Ray Williams had been on the floor a little earlier but he opted to join Jarman and Norman. Interesting to speculate what Oswald would have done had BRW remained on the sixth floor, but not terribly useful.

I keep asking you to present your evidence that Oswald knew something had gone wrong and you keep declining to do so. Why is that?

[Royell Storing]

Of course it fits. It was the only option available to Oswald once he made the decision to kill JFK. We'll never know why he made that decision but we know that he did. It isn't necessary to know why. It was a crime of opportunity. Oswald was dealt a golden opportunity to become infamous but his options were limited. He had to take the shot when it was presented to him using the only tools he had. He smuggled the rifle into the TSBD. He could not have escaped the TSBD if he took his rifle with him. He had to leave it behind.

I'm not sure he even had to construct sniper's nest. A crew was laying a new floor and a lot of boxes had already been moved to the section of the 6th floor. He could have just used what was there or he could have built the wall of boxes himself. We don't know and we don't need to know. He really didn't need that wall of boxes because at the time of the shooting, he was the only one on the 6th floor. Bonnie Ray Williams had been on the floor a little earlier but he opted to join Jarman and Norman. Interesting to speculate what Oswald would have done had BRW remained on the sixth floor, but not terribly useful.

I keep asking you to present your evidence that Oswald knew something had gone wrong and you keep declining to do so. Why is that?

    The fact you say, "...we don't need to know..." is an immediate disqualifier in your regard. Your mind is shut tight. If Oswald  did leave the wedding ring behind, that bullhorns his involvement in the assassination. I do believe there was an escape plan which would have separated him from his family. So, he carries that rifle all the way across the 6th floor and THEN hides it? And then he jumps through several hoops to get to his boarding house and arm himself with yet another gun? And after all of this he just sits inside a theater that's showing a bad movie?  But again, "....we don't need to know....".   

[John Corbett]

    The fact you say, "...we don't need to know..." is an immediate disqualifier in your regard. Your mind is shut tight. If Oswald  did leave the wedding ring behind, that bullhorns his involvement in the assassination. I do believe there was an escape plan which would have separated him from his family. So, he carries that rifle all the way across the 6th floor and THEN hides it? And then he jumps through several hoops to get to his boarding house and arm himself with yet another gun? And after all of this he just sits inside a theater that's showing a bad movie?  But again, "....we don't need to know....".

\

Of course we don't need to know why Oswald did it. It would be nice if we could figure it out but not necessary in order to prove that he did. Proving motive is not something that is required to convict a person for murder. All that is necessary is to prove that the accused committed the act. We have ample proof of Oswald's guilt.

Oswald didn't duck into the theater to watch a bad movie. He did that to escape detection from the police who were looking for a cop killer. If not for an alert Johnny Brewer, it might have worked. He could have sat through the double feature until dark and then left with the other patrons. Who knows where he would have gone after that. Who cares. It is a moot point.

You seem skeptical that Oswald would carry the rifle across the sixth floor and then hide it. What was he supposed to do with it? Walk out the front door carrying the rifle on his shoulder. He wasn't stupid. He would have known the rifle would eventually be found whether he left it in the sniper's nest or hid it between rows of boxes. Perhaps he thought, hiding it as he did might by him a little more time to escape. We don't need to read Oswald's mind or second guess every decision he made to know he was the assassin. We have ample proof of that.

The difference between you and me is that most of what I believe is based on rock solid evidence with a few loose ends that are left to speculation, such as Oswald's motive or what his plan was once he left the TSBD. My own belief, which is pure speculation, is he had no plan. I think he was surprised he got away from the TSBD, but that's something we can never know nor do we need to. On the other hand, EVERRYTHING you believe is based on speculation, and then only after you invent one cockamamie excuse after another to ignore each and every piece of evidence that screams to us that Oswald was the assassin.

The assassination of JFK is not a mystery and never has been. Within the first four hours, the DPD believed they had their man and in roughly 12 hours, they had accumulated enough evidence to formally charge him. Since that time, the case against Oswald has only gotten stronger. The only question that remained after that was whether he had one or more accomplices. Two government investigations and legions of amateur sleuths looking for evidence of such accomplices over six decades, no one has found any evidence to identify any accomplices. The JFK conspiracy hobby is an exercise in futility that has been striking out over and over again for 62 years. If you haven't found evidence in that time of any accomplices, what makes you think you ever will.

[Royell Storing]

\

Of course we don't need to know why Oswald did it. It would be nice if we could figure it out but not necessary in order to prove that he did. Proving motive is not something that is required to convict a person for murder. All that is necessary is to prove that the accused committed the act. We have ample proof of Oswald's guilt.

Oswald didn't duck into the theater to watch a bad movie. He did that to escape detection from the police who were looking for a cop killer. If not for an alert Johnny Brewer, it might have worked. He could have sat through the double feature until dark and then left with the other patrons. Who knows where he would have gone after that. Who cares. It is a moot point.

You seem skeptical that Oswald would carry the rifle across the sixth floor and then hide it. What was he supposed to do with it? Walk out the front door carrying the rifle on his shoulder. He wasn't stupid. He would have known the rifle would eventually be found whether he left it in the sniper's nest or hid it between rows of boxes. Perhaps he thought, hiding it as he did might by him a little more time to escape. We don't need to read Oswald's mind or second guess every decision he made to know he was the assassin. We have ample proof of that.

The difference between you and me is that most of what I believe is based on rock solid evidence with a few loose ends that are left to speculation, such as Oswald's motive or what his plan was once he left the TSBD. My own belief, which is pure speculation, is he had no plan. I think he was surprised he got away from the TSBD, but that's something we can never know nor do we need to. On the other hand, EVERRYTHING you believe is based on speculation, and then only after you invent one cockamamie excuse after another to ignore each and every piece of evidence that screams to us that Oswald was the assassin.

The assassination of JFK is not a mystery and never has been. Within the first four hours, the DPD believed they had their man and in roughly 12 hours, they had accumulated enough evidence to formally charge him. Since that time, the case against Oswald has only gotten stronger. The only question that remained after that was whether he had one or more accomplices. Two government investigations and legions of amateur sleuths looking for evidence of such accomplices over six decades, no one has found any evidence to identify any accomplices. The JFK conspiracy hobby is an exercise in futility that has been striking out over and over again for 62 years. If you haven't found evidence in that time of any accomplices, what makes you think you ever will.

   "....we don't need to know....".
   Your own words taint everything you post with respect to Oswald. 

[John Corbett]

   "....we don't need to know....".
   Your own words taint everything you post with respect to Oswald.

Your ignorance is truly mind boggling. Do you really think it is necessary to prove motive to convict a person of murder or prove why he took each and every action he did? You seem to have a mindset that we have to prove every last detail in order to prove an accused person is guilty of murder. If that were true, I could walk down a busy street in any city in the country and shoot and kill a person at random and I couldn't be convicted unless the prosecution could prove why I did it. Of course we don't need to know everything. The fact we don't know everything doesn't mean we need to ignore what we do know. We know Oswald was the assassin, at least those of us with common sense who are aware of the evidence against him.

You, on the other hand are perfectly to believe the nonsense that someone else killed JFK even though you have zero evidence of such and zero evidence of why they did it. You'll simply believe something because you like that story better than the one supported by real evidence.