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

[John Iacoletti]

Perhaps Mr Iacoletti is portraying himself as a horny devil.....

That came from Jerry Organ, and it's awesome.

[Richard Smith]

Dishonest John still spinning.  Just answer the question.  Does the use of a rifle instead of a pistol lend itself to Oswald's innocence?  An honest person would just say yea or nay.  A dishonest person would go off on some wild tangent.

[John Mytton]

Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall films that he saw called "Suddenly," and "We were Strangers" that involved assassinations?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember the names of these films. If you would remind me of the contents, perhaps I would know.
Mr. RANKIN. Well, "Suddenly," was about the assassination of a president, and the other was about the assassination of a Cuban dictator.
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, Lee saw those films.
Mr. RANKIN. Did he tell you that he had seen them?
Mrs. OSWALD. I was with him when he watched them.



I just noticed that Jerry beat me to this reference and he also had more examples. Nice work Jerry.

JohnM

[John Mytton]

That not nearly as nutty as a wedding ring in a cup somehow proving that Oswald did.

From Bugliosi's 53 reasons, the wedding ring was only one part of one of those reasons the other half being the money left therefore the "wedding ring in a cup" only constitutes less than 1% of Bugliosi's total evidence against Oswald.

JohnM

[Rob Caprio]

Huh??...   So you believe there is something wrong with being honest?    Do I have that right, Rob?

No, as usual you are befuddled.

[Rob Caprio]

LOL.  You are trying to make the following point.  Because no lone gunman had used a rifle to assassinate a president prior to 11.22, then that somehow proves that Oswald did not.   The logical extension of that "logic" is that no conspirator had used a rifle to assassinate a president prior to 11.22, therefore no conspirator did so on 11.22.  What is so difficult to comprehend about this?  It is the application of your nutty logic.  What you are in effect claiming is that because no one had used a rifle to assassinate a president prior to 11.22, that JFK was not assassinated by anyone.

Still lying I see. For the umpteenth time I have never said my point was proof. The evidence is the proof and that shows that LHO shot no one.

What I have said, and you have 🏃‍♂️from, is that no LONE gunman had ever used a rifle before. So why would LHO do this when he was really not a good shot to begin with?

Why can't you support the WC's claim that he did and then show us how he planned to do this.

[Rob Caprio]

Lincoln apparently was the target of an assassination attempt by rifle in August 1864 as he rode alone on his horse outside Washington.
The 1954 movie 'Suddenly" and the 1962 movie "The Manchurian Candidate" featured the sniper-rifle plot to eliminate a President and Presidential candidate respectively.

And yet, when I asked for evidence to support the Lincoln one none was produced.

And you can show that LHO saw those movies and was influenced by them how?

[Rob Caprio]

Dishonest John still spinning.  Just answer the question.  Does the use of a rifle instead of a pistol lend itself to Oswald's innocence?  An honest person would just say yea or nay.  A dishonest person would go off on some wild tangent.

An honest person would go by the evidence, but that leaves you out. Do you even know what the twenty-six volumes are?