CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?

[Richard Smith]

If anybody is struggling, it's you!

What part of "In the context of the official narrative, yes it is." do you still not understand?

So you leave open the possibility that Oswald could still be the assassin OUTSIDE the context of the "official narrative" (whatever that is supposed to mean) even if he "didn't come down the stairs"?  How about explaining for once what it is that you are suggesting.  I'm asking about YOUR position after concluding that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs."  That shouldn't require a game of a thousand questions or a mind reader.  Just tell us what you are suggesting. 

Start with your conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" and explain how Oswald still might have been the assassin outside "the context of the official narrative" if that is what you are now claiming.  Where could Oswald have assassinated JFK from if he "didn't come the stairs" to reach the 2nd floor?   If that isn't what you are claiming, then what is it?  Again, this is not a trick question since you presumably know and support your own position and have confidence to share it with us.  Right?

[Martin Weidmann]

So you leave open the possibility that Oswald could still be the assassin OUTSIDE the context of the "official narrative" (whatever that is supposed to mean) even if he "didn't come down the stairs"?  How about explaining for once what it is that you are suggesting.  I'm asking about YOUR position after concluding that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs."  That shouldn't require a game of a thousand questions or a mind reader.  Just tell us what you are suggesting. 

Start with your conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" and explain how Oswald still might have been the assassin outside "the context of the official narrative" if that is what you are now claiming. Where could Oswald have assassinated JFK from if he "didn't come the stairs" to reach the 2nd floor?    If that isn't what you are claiming, then what is it?  Again, this is not a trick question since you presumably know and support your own position and have confidence to share it with us.  Right?

So you leave open the possibility that Oswald could still be the assassin OUTSIDE the context of the "official narrative" (whatever that is supposed to mean) even if he "didn't come down the stairs"? 

Boy, you rare really struggling.  You asked me a question, which I have now answered a dozen times or more. Beyond that, if the official narrative is indeed wrong then any scenario is possible.

How about explaining for once what it is that you are suggesting.

Other than in your imagination, when did I make any suggestion?

I'm asking about YOUR position after concluding that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs."

That's easy. My position is that if Oswald didn't come down the stairs, the official narrative is wrong on a crucial element of the case against Oswald and loses all credibility.

Start with your conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" and explain how Oswald still might have been the assassin outside "the context of the official narrative" if that is what you are now claiming.

Oh boy... this is all way over your head, isn't it. But let me confuse you so more; No that's not what I am claiming. Unlike you, I don't make claims I can't back up with evidence.

Where could Oswald have assassinated JFK from if he "didn't come the stairs" to reach the 2nd floor? 

Who said that he did? You still have your official narrative blinders on and keep running in circles of your own making.

[Richard Smith]

So you leave open the possibility that Oswald could still be the assassin OUTSIDE the context of the "official narrative" (whatever that is supposed to mean) even if he "didn't come down the stairs"? 

Boy, you rare really struggling.  You asked me a question, which I have now answered a dozen times or more. Beyond that, if the official narrative is indeed wrong then any scenario is possible.

How about explaining for once what it is that you are suggesting.

Other than in your imagination, when did I make any suggestion?

I'm asking about YOUR position after concluding that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs."

That's easy. My position is that if Oswald didn't come down the stairs, the official narrative is wrong on a crucial element of the case against Oswald and loses all credibility.

Start with your conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" and explain how Oswald still might have been the assassin outside "the context of the official narrative" if that is what you are now claiming.

Oh boy... this is all way over your head, isn't it. But let me confuse you so more; No that's not what I am claiming. Unlike you, I don't make claims I can't back up with evidence.

Where could Oswald have assassinated JFK from if he "didn't come the stairs" to reach the 2nd floor? 

Who said that he did? You still have your official narrative blinders on and keep running in circles of your own making.

Simple question:  If Oswald "didn't come down the stairs," could he still have been the assassin in your opinion?  If so, how? 

[John Iacoletti]

This is where Martin attempts to deflect by asking for "my" evidence as though I or anyone has discovered evidence like Sherlock Holmes not uncovered by the DPD and FBI, as documented by the WC, in the most extensive criminal investigation in history.

This is a load of BS, even by “Richard” standards. You make truth claims that even the FBI and the WC didn’t try to make. And you never substantiate a single one. All you do is strawman Martin over and over. Give it a rest.

[John Iacoletti]

That shouldn't require a game of a thousand questions or a mind reader.  Just tell us what you are suggesting. 

Why is it that you get to endlessly ask questions (even ones that have been answered) yet steadfastly refuse to answer any questions put to you?

For the zillionth time: what is your evidence that Lee Oswald was on the sixth floor with a rifle at 12:30 and traveled down to the 2nd floor in 75 seconds without being seen or heard by at least 12 people who were along the way?

Put up or shut up, “Richard”.

[Martin Weidmann]

Why is it that you get to endlessly ask questions (even ones that have been answered) yet steadfastly refuse to answer any questions put to you?

For the zillionth time: what is your evidence that Lee Oswald was on the sixth floor with a rifle at 12:30 and traveled down to the 2nd floor in 75 seconds without being seen or heard by at least 12 people who were along the way?

Put up or shut up, “Richard”.

Bump for Richard

[Richard Smith]

Bump for Richard

Again, that was done in the 1960s by law enforcement.  They conducted and compiled the evidence that links Oswald to the crime beyond any doubt.  That evidence is widely available.  I have nothing to add to that evidence not being a law enforcement person with the responsibility to investigate the crime.  The evidence compiled by the investigation is the evidence that I rely upon to conclude that Oswald was the assassin on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

[Martin Weidmann]

Again, that was done in the 1960s by law enforcement.  They conducted and compiled the evidence that links Oswald to the crime beyond any doubt.  That evidence is widely available.  I have nothing to add to that evidence not being a law enforcement person with the responsibility to investigate the crime.  The evidence compiled by the investigation is the evidence that I rely upon to conclude that Oswald was the assassin on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

Translation: I don't have an opinion of my own and just blindly believe whatever I am told, which in turn I of course can not explain or defend.

They conducted and compiled the evidence that links Oswald to the crime beyond any doubt.

2 comments;

1. No they didn't. The evidence was weak, dubious and highly circumstantial with only a tentative link to Oswald

2. Hang on....You have just expressed the opinion that the evidence compiled by law enforcement is linked to Oswald beyond any doubt. So, you do have an opinion after all. But you can not explain why that is your opinion and how you arrived at that conclusion? Is that right? Wow....

The evidence compiled by the investigation is the evidence that I rely upon to conclude that Oswald was the assassin on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

Again, relying on evidence to conclude that Oswald was on the 6th floor is an opinion. It's your opinion, so why can't you explain on exactly what evidence that opinion is based?

What actual evidence do you have that shows that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired?