Why Would LHO Choose His Workplace As The Location For Shooting JFK?

[Walt Cakebread]

So far not one believer in the official story has shown why LHO would choose his place of work where he was known to assassinate the president from. Furthermore, they have not explained why he would choose a floor that had work being done on it when the seventh floor was quiet and had a room with a door.

why LHO would choose his place of work where he was known to assassinate the president from.

The hoax  attempt in which Lee was perpetrating was intended to indicate that Lee had attempted to shoot JFK ( just as the hoax attempt at Walker's was intended to appear that Lee had tried to shoot Walker)

If the hoax attempt had been staged at some other place the Barney Fifes of Dallas would never have have picked up the trail, just as they never picked up the trail at walker's....

You may recall that Lee was disappointed when he heard on the radio that the police had thought he had escaped from Walker's by car after firing a 30.06 bullet through the window....  Lee scoffed at their ineptitude and told Marina the Barney Fifes couldn't even get the caliber of the bullet right......

[Rob Caprio]

why LHO would choose his place of work where he was known to assassinate the president from.

The hoax  attempt in which Lee was perpetrating was intended to indicate that Lee had attempted to shoot JFK ( just as the hoax attempt at Walker's was intended to appear that Lee had tried to shoot Walker)

If the hoax attempt had been staged at some other place the Barney Fifes of Dallas would never have have picked up the trail, just as they never picked up the trail at walker's....

You may recall that Lee was disappointed when he heard on the radio that the police had thought he had escaped from Walker's by car after firing a 30.06 bullet through the window....  Lee scoffed at their ineptitude and told Marina the Barney Fifes couldn't even get the caliber of the bullet right......

What evidence led you to this theory? Theories are fine, but without evidence they are no better than the WC's.

[Walt Cakebread]

What evidence led you to this theory? Theories are fine, but without evidence they are no better than the WC's.

Have you read much about the case?  ( I mean other than the fiction like Roger Craig's account)

[John Iacoletti]

Btw if this is your current state of sanity then I can hardly wait till next you prove Martin and Walt are using their real names.

I don't have to prove anything.  You accused me of being dishonest.  And you've utterly failed to demonstrate that I have been dishonest.

[John Iacoletti]

Have you read much about the case?  ( I mean other than the fiction like Roger Craig's account)

LOL.  He should prefer Walt's fiction instead?

[John Mytton]

I don't have to prove anything.  You accused me of being dishonest.  And you've utterly failed to demonstrate that I have been dishonest.

Hahaha!

This is how it works buddy, you said that Walt, Rob and Martin all use their real names, how you could possibly know this is not known but you said that you "know"? Anyway for starters your plan backfired because Rob's post that you thought was deleted along with his account was actually preserved as a quote within my post. Oops!
Rob says that he uses one alias and then goes on to support this statement by saying that he doesn't use multiple names, thus proving that you were being dishonest.



Btw Walt and Rob who usually pounce on me are right here and doing their best to stay away from your absurd claims. So until we see some sort of proof that your mates are not using aliases then your status as Dishonest John will only strengthen.

Waiting......

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

This is how it works buddy,

No, that's not how it works, "buddy".  You're being dishonest about what "dishonest" means just like your buddy "Richard".

Dishonest would mean both that I made a statement that is false, and that I knew it was false at the time I made it.  You haven't demonstrated either.

You also are playing mindreader by claiming that I "thought Rob's post was deleted" with no evidence of that either. 

If it turns out that I'm mistaken about anybody's real names, I will admit that I was mistaken.  That still wouldn't get you to "dishonest".  I don't think I'm mistaken though.

And I don't blame Rob for laying low on this forum where people in the past have dredged up old resumes in order to try to attack and mock him.  As for Walt, he's already criticized people who use fake names.

With that, stop derailing multiple threads with your petty vendettas.

[John Mytton]

Dishonest would mean both that I made a statement that is false, and that I knew it was false at the time I made it.  You haven't demonstrated either.

Oops!

Nope.  I stand by what I said.

JohnM