Firearms experts who say; ?I can't do it so it can't be done?, cannot be trusted

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

Weak reply. You "dodged" most of the replies I made to your "assertions".

FACT: Oswald's rifle-shooting ability is not "front and center" when debating the possibility of "expert shooters not trying their best" in reconstructions.

I didn't bring up "the odds"... Jerry Freeman did.
The chances all must number into the thousands ..lucky indeed.

It is obvious you don't even know the WC version or how they come to their conclusion...

I have a copy of the report of the Warren Commission (New York Times Edition - hardcover version). I've read it thoroughly.

Is there some rule that says I cannot ask a question when your reply is vague or just an assertion?

Just because I named you Prof. Ross does not mean you are a Professor. 

Question: What does this statement remind you of?
"I have a copy of the report of the Warren Commission (New York Times Edition - hardcover version). I've read it thoroughly."

Answer #1 Hopefully you, because you typed it
Answer #2 Some guy who went to NYU for a degree in journalism.

Before you react, tell me if I am right. Lie if you want to.
"I have a copy of the report of the Warren Commission (New York Times Edition - hardcover version). I've read it thoroughly."

Who in the hell cares? I certainly don't, but I do understand why you believe the silly things you believe. You are as ill as the researcher who thinks one theory, the first one he came across, in your case, it's that one theory in the almighty book, the New York Times Edition-hard cover version. Did I get that right Preacher Ross? The New York Times Edition??? Is that the edition you memorized? Does it have their world-class photography to add to the special "hardcover version"? Which version is it? Does it explain how Arlen Spector reshapes theories, literally creates new laws of physics and etc. is it similar to reading the failing NYTimes newspaper

Ross, you need to open your mind just a little bit

[John Iacoletti]

A metaphor.

Still wrong because the New York Times authorized version of The Warren Commission Report is not abbreviated. Words per page is greater but that's the only discernible difference.

I think you misunderstood his point. The WCR is a bunch of summaries and conclusions that are not actually supported by the evidence and testimonies in the Hearings and Exhibits.

[Bill Chapman]

creates new laws of physics and etc. is it similar to reading the failing NYTimes newspaper

"the failing NYTimes newspaper"

LOL... now where have I heard that one before... oh yeah.. from the guy who has 'all the words... the best words..'

The Groper/Kidnapper-in-Chief himself:



Bray, Donald, BRAY

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

Paperboy Chaps is your name.  Year to date, I have found a whopping whole 2 real stories out of thousands that were published by your employer, the NYTimes. Even the Washington Post has more real stories than the NYTimes this year, although, they only lead the Times by one real story for a total of 3. You should see if WaPo will hire you for your delivery skills, they can afford to pay more. Carlos Slim pays less than Goofy Bezos

[Jerry Freeman]

Chapman and Lidell are scattering straw all over the place again [another metaphor]  ...drifting further away from the original topic to proselytize unrelated ambiguous ideas. I challenge them to fire the model Carcano rifle and hit the broadside of a barn at 50 feet in 6 seconds. 

[Jack Trojan]

Chapman and Lidell are scattering straw all over the place again [another metaphor]  ...drifting further away from the original topic to proselytize unrelated ambiguous ideas. I challenge them to fire the model Carcano rifle and hit the broadside of a barn at 50 feet in 6 seconds.

And make sure not to practice and use a wonky scope. I wager 40 quatloos that they fail.

[Joe Elliott]

"Roger Craig" and then "Craig Rogers"? Or should it be Craig Roberts? Put the crack pipe down, Joe. It's affecting your mind.

His name is not important to me. Nor should it be important to anyone else. A lair is still a liar.

Questions:

What evidence, beyond the ?word? of Craig Roberts, that Carlos Hathcock ever set up a test to see if the shooting by Oswald on November 22 was feasible?

What evidence, beyond the ?word? of Craig Roberts, that Carlos Hathcock ever claimed he set up a test to see if the shooting by Oswald on November 22 was feasible?

I expect you to dodge these two simple questions.

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

His name is not important to me. Nor should it be important to anyone else. A lair is still a liar.

Questions:

What evidence, beyond the ?word? of Craig Roberts, that Carlos Hathcock ever set up a test to see if the shooting by Oswald on November 22 was feasible?

What evidence, beyond the ?word? of Craig Roberts, that Carlos Hathcock ever claimed he set up a test to see if the shooting by Oswald on November 22 was feasible?

I expect you to dodge these two simple questions.

Nonsense. The burden is on you to prove Oswald committed the crime.  No one has to do prove anything to you. Don't kid yourself.
Here's a nice game for you to ponder: http://krusch.com/jfkshell/story.html
Use your head