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

[Jerry Freeman]

Freeman, How do you know that? "Crummy rifle, he sometimes got 'Maggie's Drawers' at 500 yards, and, gosh darn it, he said he was just a patsy, didn't he??"
Or is that just wishful thinking on your part, because, well ... you hate the evil, evil, evil CIA so doggone much!!!?

I revived this thread [reply #427] because I just knew that Tommy the Troll was going to ask that.
I can tell that he [and some other posters here] must not have even read that post.

[Thomas Graves]

I revived this thread [reply #427] because I just knew that Tommy the Troll was going to ask that.
I can tell that he [and some other posters here] must not have even read that post.

Freeman,

What post?

LOL

--  MWT   

[Steve M. Galbraith]

There: no rule-book... [I missed a colon]

There's no rule-book... [I missed an apostrophe and an "s"]

There is no rule-book... [I missed the word "is"]

For Oswald not to be positively identified at the window from where shots were  fired does not exonerate him of assassinating President John F. Kennedy.

I find it curious that the general or major conspiracy argument is that these major groups - or elements of them - like "the CIA" and "the FBI" and "the Pentagon" and "the DPD" conspired to kill JFK and frame Oswald and yet they didn't plant four or five witnesses in Dealey Plaza to say they saw Oswald in that window.  Remember that the conspiracy explanation in the Tippit shooting is that the witnesses were all coerced or planted or lied into saying it was Oswald who shot him. So why didn't Hoover or whomever plant witnesses to say they saw Oswald pull the trigger?

We can't prove - and certainly not to these conspiracy absolutists - that there wasn't a conspiracy and LHO didn't shoot JFK. So all we can do is ask these types of questions. For me, the failure of these alleged conspirators to do something simple such as plant witnesses who would identify Oswald as the shooter is evidence that there was no conspiracy. No, not proof. And no, not substantive evidence. But some evidence.

The conspiracists don't like these types of questions. Such as why didn't Marina say Oswald hated JFK? Or why didn't Paine said she saw the rifle. Et cetera. But sorry, they are legitimate ones even if they can't answer them.

[Walt Cakebread]

Prof English, what did you do wrong here?

There was one? 

So they did see him in the window?

Or you have photographic evidence showing an individual in that window?

Answer: No you don't.
 
Question: Why don't you?

Answer: Because it never happened

Too bad your bag of evidence does not support your conclusion. You are not the first sucker.

So they did see him in the window?

Or you have photographic evidence showing an individual in that window?

Answer: No you don't.
 
Question: Why don't you?

Answer: Because it never happened

Too bad your bag of evidence does not support your conclusion. You are not the first sucker.

[Jerry Freeman]

Freeman, What post?

Reply #427. Instead of reading stuff you are just here for grins right?

[Jerry Freeman]

I find it curious that the general or major conspiracy argument is that these major groups - or elements of them - like "the CIA" and "the FBI" and "the Pentagon" and "the DPD" conspired to kill JFK and frame Oswald and yet they didn't plant four or five witnesses in Dealey Plaza to say they saw Oswald in that window.  Remember that the conspiracy explanation in the Tippit shooting is that the witnesses were all coerced or planted or lied into saying it was Oswald who shot him. So why didn't Hoover or whomever plant witnesses to say they saw Oswald pull the trigger? The conspiracists don't like these types of questions. Such as why didn't Marina say Oswald hated JFK? Or why didn't Paine said she saw the rifle. Et cetera. But sorry, they are legitimate ones even if they can't answer them.

This has all been asked before. Everything has.
 "I saw him do it'' witnesses were rounded up were they not? [even if they didn't see anything]..but phony ones were not required or even desirable.
Were they there to watch the parade or gaze at the windows? There was already enough 'evidence'.
"Paine saw the rifle"? She didn't because there was no rifle in her garage. If she said there was anyway..it would have raised too many more questions.
Marina had already told the cops that Oswald bore no animosity toward JFK...so she couldn't very well tell the Commission any differently. 

[Zeon Mason]

It’s a question of when Oswald would have read the newspaper

If it is not until Thursday, then the reason is it’s risky to take a rifle in a package into Dealey plaza on Friday morning,let alone into some other building

On the other hand, if Oswald read the Tuesday paper then he had more than enough time to explore Dealey plaza, select some spot or building, and to carry a package with rifle. If William Castor could walk around carrying TWO rifles as well as EXHIBIT them without any DPD , FBI, or other security being alarmed, then surely Oswald could have probably done so with just ONE package

[John Iacoletti]

Klienschmidt,

Are you sure photographic evidence would be sufficient?

I thought you, like Iacoletti, required notarized statements from fifteen witnesses, and DNA samples, too.

“Tommy said so” should be good enough evidence for anything. At least according to Tommy.