A straight line

[Martin Weidmann]

Uhh, Iacoletti... The fact that you called it a 'lame excuse' suggests you must know Oswald would not want to 'look like a sniper'

However, brandishing a rifle, with pistol on his hip, decked out in all-black getup, clutching commie literature* and posing for the camera might suggest that which you dismiss so easily may be not so far off the mark after all.


*All of which Marina found quite amusing, purportedly

The fact that you called it a 'lame excuse' suggests you must know Oswald would not want to 'look like a sniper'

No.

Try to follow along, please, if you can...

The person making the claim could not possibly know what Oswald was thinking, so any claim based on that alone would automatically be a lame excuse.

Get it now?

[Andrew Mason]

Do you realize how difficult it is to remove all your prints from a MC after you have disassembled/reassembled and fired, then ditched it? Impossible!

No, I don't. Tell me how difficult it would be.

And Shirley, Oswald realized that a printless  rifle would still lead back to him, regardless of whether they snuck a post-mortem palm print on the stock.

Or to a PO Box registered under "AJ HIDELL". And my name is Andrew, BTW.

Which leads us to why would military marksman Oswald, who knew a thing or 2 about rifles, keep a useless scope on the MC when he knew he would have to use the iron sights?

According to Robert Frazier of the FBI, the scope was slightly out but if the target was moving in the direction away and to the right, the error was reduced. So by aiming at the president's head it would have hit 6 inches lower in the upper back. 3 H 409

 

[Bill Chapman]

The fact that you called it a 'lame excuse' suggests you must know Oswald would not want to 'look like a sniper'

No.

Try to follow along, please, if you can...

The person making the claim could not possibly know what Oswald was thinking, so any claim based on that alone would automatically be a lame excuse.

Get it now?

Of course you and your trollmates would think it a lame excuse. After all, both of you busybodies are here to protect the killer of JFK.

Tell us if the poster claimed, or merely suggested that Oswald did or might want 'look like a sniper'.

I personally think it was an interesting take on the possibilities given Oswald's aforementioned BY antics, History diary, wanting to be remembered for the next 10,000 years...

Any hints in there for you, Martini?

[John Iacoletti]

Uhh, Iacoletti... The fact that you called it a 'lame excuse' suggests you must know Oswald would not want to 'look like a sniper'

Sigh.  No, Bill.  It's a lame excuse because it's completely contrived with no evidence whatsoever that Oswald wanted to "look like a sniper" while shooting the president.  If that was the case, and he had actually done it, why would he deny doing it?

*All of which Marina found quite amusing, purportedly

You mean the same Marina who said there was no scope on this rifle at the time?

[John Iacoletti]

Of course you and your trollmates would think it a lame excuse. After all, both of you busybodies are here to protect the killer of JFK.

It sure is easy to make an argument when you just assume that the thing you're trying to prove is true.

[Bill Chapman]

Sigh.  No, Bill.  It's a lame excuse because it's completely contrived with no evidence whatsoever that Oswald wanted to "look like a sniper" while shooting the president.  If that was the case, and he had actually done it, why would he deny doing it?

You mean the same Marina who said there was no scope on this rifle at the time?

Sigh

[Martin Weidmann]

Of course you and your trollmates would think it a lame excuse. After all, both of you busybodies are here to protect the killer of JFK.

Tell us if the poster claimed, or merely suggested that Oswald did or might want 'look like a sniper'.

I personally think it was an interesting take on the possibilities given Oswald's aforementioned BY antics, History diary, wanting to be remembered for the next 10,000 years...

Any hints in there for you, Martini?

Of course you and your trollmates would think it a lame excuse.

No. It's utterly amazing that you don't (want to) get such a simple concept.

Any sane rational individual understands that a claim or even a suggestion solely based upon what one individual speculates about what another individual might have thought is complete and utter BS and thus lame excuse.

But perhaps it's hardly a surprise that you don't get that after all, as LN's desperately need that kind of speculation to support their fairytale.


After all, both of you busybodies are here to protect the killer of JFK.

Really? Who exactly are those "busybodies" and show us please where they have actually tried to protect anybody?

Btw, could it possibly be true that for you disagreeing with the BS arguments you post somehow equals defending a killer?

I personally think it was an interesting take

Of course that's what you personally think, because it lets you speculate and make up stuff as much as you want. It's typical for an average LN. In the real world nobody cares what you think.

Any hints in there for you, Martini?

Oh sure, but I'll spare your feelings by mentioning any of it. One must have pity for a guy who can't even write my name correctly....

[Jack Trojan]

No, I don't. Tell me how difficult it would be.

Damned near impossible. And at the very least, Oswald must have taken the time AFTER the shooting to wipe his prints off the stock, bolt and trigger, before ditching the weapon. You give LHO way too much credit. No one could have done this, let alone patsy Oswald.

Or to a PO Box registered under "AJ HIDELL". And my name is Andrew, BTW.

Sorry Andrew, but Shirley LHO knew that any rifle found in the building would come back to him. The FBI linked the gun to Oswald in less than 12 hours! Imagine that.

According to Robert Frazier of the FBI, the scope was slightly out but if the target was moving in the direction away and to the right, the error was reduced. So by aiming at the president's head it would have hit 6 inches lower in the upper back. 3 H 409

Frazier said the scope needed 3 shims for it to even hit the target. That is no where near "slightly out". Face it, the scope was useless, even IF Oswald was a practiced marksman. No one could have used the scope to make 2 of 3 shots, which includes the head shot. And Oswald was NOT a practiced marksman by any stretch, he was a patsy that didn't even take a shot.