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

[John Iacoletti]

What did Hoover have to work with?

Oswald ordered a Carcano rifle.

No, unscientific and biased handwriting "analysis" of 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon said that Oswald ordered a similar, but not identical, rifle.

Oswald holding a Carcano rifle.

There's nothing uniquely identifying this as a Carcano, much less a particular Carcano.

Oswald's carcano rifle on the 6th floor.

Based on a previously flawed assumptiom

Oswald's shirt fibers on Carcano rifle.

No.  Similar fibers that can't be uniquely connected to any particular shirt.

Oswald has no alibi.

As do at least 6 other people in the TSBD alone.

Oswald's killing a Police Officer.

Oswald's trying to kill more Police Officers.

Both claims assume facts not in evidence.

And you reckon there was a reason to doubt that Oswald was the real assassin?

Yes.  When you have to misrepresent the evidence to make your argument then you have no argument.  Even if you could prove that Oswald ever possessed this particular rifle (and you can't), that doesn't prove that he shot JFK with it.

[John Mytton]

After the fact, many police officers want to insert themselves into history -- one even selling photos of himself labeled "captor of Oswald".  But that doesn't change the actual evidence.

What point are you trying to make?, McDonald was actually there when Oswald was captured, other Police Officers testified that McDonald was the one who approached Oswald.

JohnM

[John Mytton]

No, unscientific and biased handwriting "analysis" of 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon said that Oswald ordered a similar, but not identical, rifle.

There's nothing uniquely identifying this as a Carcano, much less a particular Carcano.

Based on a previously flawed assumptiom

No.  Similar fibers that can't be uniquely connected to any particular shirt.

As do at least 6 other people in the TSBD alone.

Both claims assume facts not in evidence.

Yes.  When you have to misrepresent the evidence to make your argument then you have no argument.  Even if you could prove that Oswald ever possessed this particular rifle (and you can't), that doesn't prove that he shot JFK with it.

What are you babbling about, we're not talking about what you perceive to be evidence but we're talking about the evidence that Hoover had access to and as every investigation about the JFK Assassination since has since shown us, Hoover's initial statement was spot on.

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

What point are you trying to make?, McDonald was actually there when Oswald was captured, other Police Officers testified that McDonald was the one who approached Oswald.

Approach equals capture?

[John Iacoletti]

What are you babbling about, we're not talking about what you perceive to be evidence but we're talking about the evidence that Hoover had access to and as every investigation about the JFK Assassination since has since shown us, Hoover's initial statement was spot on.

"Hoover said it, I believe it, and that settles it".

Interesting way of determining what's actually true.

[John Mytton]

Approach equals capture?

Huh? McDonald was part of the Officers who captured Oswald therefore McDonald can rightly claim to be a captor of Oswald, why is this even being debated?
John you used to be good at this, what happened?

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

Huh? McDonald was part of the Officers who captured Oswald therefore McDonald can rightly claim to be a captor of Oswald, why is this even being debated?
John you used to be good at this, what happened?

He didn't capture anybody.  He even lied about being the one to put cuffs on Oswald.

But the point is, you have to have way more "liars" and "mistaken" people to support the Oswald did it alone narrative than to question it.

[John Mytton]

He didn't capture anybody.  He even lied about being the one to put cuffs on Oswald.

But the point is, you have to have way more "liars" and "mistaken" people to support the Oswald did it alone narrative than to question it.

He didn't capture anybody.

Yes he did, he even took the first punch in the face from Oswald and luckily the skin between his thumb and forefinger got between the hammer on Oswald's revolver and saved his life.

He even lied about being the one to put cuffs on Oswald.

I wasn't there, I don't know?

But the point is, you have to have way more "liars" and "mistaken" people to support the Oswald did it alone narrative than to question it.

Sure, you have the right to question certain aspects that's the defense's job but nothing you have presented can even remotely refute the mountain of evidence that Oswald took his rifle to work and shot the President.

JohnM