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

[Denis Pointing]

Don't eat the cheese...why can't you geniuses see this was a plant? Oswald said he was a "patsy." I agree and it's extremely unlikely he was on the sixth floor anyway...

A very interesting opinion ~yawn~ When will you be submitting the facts to back it up..next post maybe?

[Jim Brunsman]

There's absolutely no point trying to reason with the nutters. I have never seen any indication of a willingness to study all the evidence which makes discussions extremely one-sided and endlessly frustrating. It's much like trying to reason with a cult member. But I would debate anyone at any time in any forum that was open-minded and reasonable. There are so many reasons to exonerate Oswald, where would I start? First, ask yourself a few basic questions: Why would Oswald purchase a gun by mail order when he could have acquired a much better gun without any paper trail? What competent assassin would select the "humanitarian rifle"? What happened to the Mauser found in the Depository? Wouldn't that be a much more accurate weapon for an assassination?
   What about the bone-headed SBT? Does anyone with three active brain cells believe that nonsense? Let me help you: count the witnesses at the autopsy who reported that the back wound went in "less than a finger's length" and did not exit the president's body. If their testimony is correct, the SBT is annihilated. Why should I believe Sibert and O'Neil? Why should we believe the exact same testimony from mortician Tom Robinson? I'm sure someone will try to discredit these witnesses, but what they reported was very important. Hoover, one of the most evil individuals in American history, was too ignorant to know what his own agents really reported concerning the autopsy.

But I will be attacked by the trolls who are unable to answer even the most basic question without prevaricating...

[Tim Nickerson]

Let me help you: count the witnesses at the autopsy who reported that the back wound went in "less than a finger's length" and did not exit the president's body. If their testimony is correct, the SBT is annihilated. Why should I believe Sibert and O'Neil? Why should we believe the exact same testimony from mortician Tom Robinson?

Did Tom Robinson actually report that? When? Where can that testimony of his be viewed?

[Martin Weidmann]

There's absolutely no point trying to reason with the nutters. I have never seen any indication of a willingness to study all the evidence which makes discussions extremely one-sided and endlessly frustrating. It's much like trying to reason with a cult member. But I would debate anyone at any time in any forum that was open-minded and reasonable. There are so many reasons to exonerate Oswald, where would I start? First, ask yourself a few basic questions: Why would Oswald purchase a gun by mail order when he could have acquired a much better gun without any paper trail? What competent assassin would select the "humanitarian rifle"? What happened to the Mauser found in the Depository? Wouldn't that be a much more accurate weapon for an assassination?
   What about the bone-headed SBT? Does anyone with three active brain cells believe that nonsense? Let me help you: count the witnesses at the autopsy who reported that the back wound went in "less than a finger's length" and did not exit the president's body. If their testimony is correct, the SBT is annihilated. Why should I believe Sibert and O'Neil? Why should we believe the exact same testimony from mortician Tom Robinson? I'm sure someone will try to discredit these witnesses, but what they reported was very important. Hoover, one of the most evil individuals in American history, was too ignorant to know what his own agents really reported concerning the autopsy.

But I will be attacked by the trolls who are unable to answer even the most basic question without prevaricating...

But I will be attacked by the trolls who are unable to answer even the most basic question without prevaricating...

Well, you can expect to be attacked when you say something silly like;

"Why should we believe the exact same testimony from mortician Tom Robinson?"

because Robinson never testified anywhere.

Btw, Tomlinson did make some public comments and I consider him a credible witness. He just never testified and Tim, of course, knows this…..

[Tim Nickerson]

But I will be attacked by the trolls who are unable to answer even the most basic question without prevaricating...

Well, you can expect to be attacked when you say something silly like;

"Why should we believe the exact same testimony from mortician Tom Robinson?"

because Robinson never testified anywhere.

Btw, Tomlinson did make some public comments and I consider him a credible witness. He just never testified and Tim, of course, knows this…..

Hi Martin,

You have Darrell Tomlinson on your mind. That's understandable, since you and I have had numerous discussions on him. Are you familiar with Tom Robinson's HSCA interview?

[Martin Weidmann]

Hi Martin,

You have Darrell Tomlinson on your mind. That's understandable, since you and I have had numerous discussions on him. Are you familiar with Tom Robinson's HSCA interview?

Hi Tim.

Actually, I had forgotten all about that. Thanks 

As to the confusion about the name, that's a mystery for me. I have no idea how I confused Tomlinson with Robinson.... must be old age or something

[Tim Nickerson]

Hi Tim.

Actually, I had forgotten all about that. Thanks 

As to the confusion about the name, that's a mystery for me. I have no idea how I confused Tomlinson with Robinson.... must be old age or something

My hearing aid is acting up on me , so I can't see very well. Did you say old age?

[Denis Pointing]

There's absolutely no point trying to reason with the nutters. I have never seen any indication of a willingness to study all the evidence which makes discussions extremely one-sided and endlessly frustrating. It's much like trying to reason with a cult member. But I would debate anyone at any time in any forum that was open-minded and reasonable. There are so many reasons to exonerate Oswald, where would I start? First, ask yourself a few basic questions: Why would Oswald purchase a gun by mail order when he could have acquired a much better gun without any paper trail? What competent assassin would select the "humanitarian rifle"? What happened to the Mauser found in the Depository? Wouldn't that be a much more accurate weapon for an assassination?
   What about the bone-headed SBT? Does anyone with three active brain cells believe that nonsense? Let me help you: count the witnesses at the autopsy who reported that the back wound went in "less than a finger's length" and did not exit the president's body. If their testimony is correct, the SBT is annihilated. Why should I believe Sibert and O'Neil? Why should we believe the exact same testimony from mortician Tom Robinson? I'm sure someone will try to discredit these witnesses, but what they reported was very important. Hoover, one of the most evil individuals in American history, was too ignorant to know what his own agents really reported concerning the autopsy.

But I will be attacked by the trolls who are unable to answer even the most basic question without prevaricating...

You seem to have an extremely low opinion of about half the membership of this forum i.e. anyone that's reached a different conclusion than yourself. Frankly, I'm surprised you even lower yourself by posting here. We should all feel highly honoured.