Yes, using common sense and reason on these nuts is like trying to teach a chimp to speak French.
“Common sense and reason” is what “Richard” calls it when he makes up a narrative out of thin air.
logical inference relating to Oswald's actions. That would include his scouting a place in the building that gave him the best combination of a shooting location and seclusion to commit the act.
Case in point. There’s no evidence whatsoever that Oswald “scouted” the building.
Oswald would also have been aware of the general patterns and behaviors of his fellow employees
Baseless speculation. There’s no reason to assume that they had any “general patterns and behaviors” to be aware of, or that Oswald was in fact aware of any.
including whether the 6th floor was generally deserted at lunch time.
They didn’t “generally” lay flooring. In fact, it was less likely to be deserted this particular day than usual.
He had worked in the building for a month or so. When he selects the 6th floor as his shooting location,
Notice how “Richard” just slips in his conclusion as an assumption?
he decides where it is best to hide the rifle on that floor.
There’s no evidence that a rifle was hidden on that floor prior to the motorcade arriving.
And that would be where he goes with the rifle when he arrives that morning.
There’s no evidence Oswald went to the sixth floor when he arrived that morning. Or that he had a rifle.
Not rocket science.
Correct. It’s just self-serving made up BS.
He is seen carrying his clipboard and the clipboard is found on the 6th floor.
There’s also no way to know that the clipboard found by Frankie Kaiser 11 days later was used by Oswald on November 22. Kaiser wasn’t even at work that day.
Only Oswald can know certain details of the crime.
Again, assuming the conclusion. And why are you so dead set on making up details that cannot be known?
But no one needs to prove with absolute certainty where Oswald hid the rifle or whether he had some trepidation about carrying it into the building to demonstrate his guilt.
You haven’t even proven that he brought a rifle into the building.
The presence of Oswald's rifle
LOL
on the floor from which witnesses confirm there was a shooter
No witnesses saw any shooting.
along with fired bullet casings from his rifle make him the obvious suspect.
Suspect to your heart’s content. Just don’t pretend you’ve proven anything.
His prints on the SN boxes and bag further implicate him.
Implicate him for what? Touching book boxes that it was his job to get books out of? Or touching a bag that you can’t demonstrate ever contained a rifle?
Absent any type of reasonable explanation as to how his rifle ended up there, his goose is cooked.
Guilty until proven innocent. “Reasonable” to you means the thing you already believe.
Instead Oswald flees the building, gets a pistol, shoots a police officer, and lies to the police about not owning a rifle.
Again, these are all claims based on
biased assumptions (Oops, I mean “common sense”), not evidence.
His story about the bag also contradicts what Frazier tells the police (i.e. that he asked Oswald about his lunch and Oswald confirmed that he was not carrying his lunch on that day). All highly indicative of guilt.
All that’s highly indicative of is that his (alleged) story contradicts Frazier. Frazier’s story over the years also contradicts Frazier’s story.
It is laughable that anyone can believe from these facts and circumstances that there is any doubt whatsoever of his guilt.
It’s laughable that you think your subjective opinions are evidence.
A contrarian can dispute facts, evidence, common sense and logic to the end of time if they don't desire reaching any conclusion.
You act like reaching a conclusion is in-and-of-itself a virtue. Even if you have to make things up to reach it.
It's just a lazy and dishonest way to create the false impression of doubt.
Just because
you have no doubt doesn’t mean there is no reasonable doubt. It’s not all about you.
Nothing in human history could ever be accepted as fact applying that type of alice-in-wonderland kookery to any situation. It's what a defense attorney does when they realize their client is guilty. An implicit acknowledgement of guilt.
What
you are doing is what a corrupt prosecutor does when there is a foregone conclusion. Everything points to guilt.
“I am not a witch”
“Only a true witch will deny being a witch!”
“All right then, I’m a witch”
“She’s a witch — she admitted it!”
