Why Was Oswald Killed?

[Martin Weidmann]

It's just more evidence, like the following;

Oswald has no alibi.
Oswald's rifle was on the 6th floor.
Oswald's rifle is exclusively linked to the shells in the sniper's nest.
Oswald's rifle is exclusively linked to CE399 and two fragments found in the Limo.
Oswald's rifle has matching fibers to Oswald's arrest shirt.
Oswald's prints were on the barrel and according to experienced fingerprint expert Scalice, on the trigger guard.
Oswald's fresh(within days) prints on the Rolling reader box, was moved over 40 feet and angled down Elm street as were Oswald's prints.
Brennan's description of the man he saw on the 6th floor is a close match to Oswald.
Other eyewitnesses report a rifle or a pipe like object in the window
Oswald is seen moving around getting a coke about 90 seconds later while just outside is total pandemonium, almost everyone in the building heard shots I wonder if Oswald did?

So as I said it's all about the evidence and without a bogeyman all you got is a lot of non focused nonsense and unconnected wild accusations.

JohnM

All highly questionable and circumstantial and none of it is proof of Oswald being on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting.

[John Iacoletti]

Bottom line: Euins and Brennan saw the shooter whether you like it or not.

Is this supposed to impress anyone?  I could just as easily say that Hill, Willis, Arnold, and Hoffman saw the shooter whether you like it or not.

Euins description of the hairline matches Oswald's hairline whether you like it or not.

Sorry, Oswald didn't have a bald spot.  Nor was he a "colored man".

[John Iacoletti]

It's just more evidence, like the following;

Same tired propaganda.

Oswald has no alibi.

Neither did at least 6 people in the TSBD alone.

Oswald's rifle was on the 6th floor.
Oswald's rifle is exclusively linked to the shells in the sniper's nest.

"Oswald's rifle".  LOL.

Oswald's rifle is exclusively linked to CE399 and two fragments found in the Limo.

CE 399 can't be connected with the murder in any way.

The fragments allegedly "found in the limo" have no chain of custody.

Oswald's rifle has matching fibers to Oswald's arrest shirt.

And by "matching" you mean not identifiable as having come from any particular shirt.

Oswald's prints were on the barrel

Wrong.  A single partial palmprint was found a week later on an index card.

and according to experienced fingerprint expert Scalice, on the trigger guard.

No, Scalice examined photographs that he was told were of the trigger guard of CE 139 and a fingerprint card that he was told was Oswald's, 30 years after the fact.  The expert who actually examined the weapon in 1963 said they were useless for identification purposes.  Scalice never disclosed what his matching points of idenfication were or his basis for his opinion.

Oswald's fresh(within days) prints on the Rolling reader box,

His job was getting books out of boxes.

was moved over 40 feet and angled down Elm street as were Oswald's prints.

There's no way to determine who moved the boxes, or when, or why.

Brennan's description of the man he saw on the 6th floor is a close match to Oswald.

and by "close match", you mean wrong height, wrong age, wrong weight, and wrong clothing.

Other eyewitnesses report a rifle or a pipe like object in the window

Not sure what that has to do with Oswald.

Oswald is seen moving around getting a coke about 90 seconds later while just outside is total pandemonium, almost everyone in the building heard shots I wonder if Oswald did?

Not sure why this is in a list of "evidence".

So as I said it's all about the evidence and without a bogeyman all you got is a lot of non focused nonsense and unconnected wild accusations.

No, for you it's all about misrepresenting evidence and pretending that unsupportable conclusions about the evidence is evidence itself.

[Bill Chapman]

Same tired propaganda
>>> Same Iacoletti canned troll-$peak

Neither did at least 6 people in the TSBD alone.
>>> Oswald thus blended in with your gang of 6+. Marine training, you see. Blend in with the local yokels when attempting to lessen 'eyes on'

"Oswald's rifle".  LOL.
>>> Nah. Hidell's 

CE 399 can't be connected with the murder in any way.
>>> Cool. Any idea what caused the significantly-flattened butt end?
Any idea why you 'researchers' don't post that butt-end view?

His job was getting books out of boxes.
>>> Did his job description include pointing boxes out a window aimed straight down Elm?

There's no way to determine who moved the boxes, or when, or why
>>> There's a way to determine the odds of having Oswald's prints on two corners of a box in a window aimed straight down Elm

and by "close match", you mean wrong height, wrong age, wrong weight, and wrong clothing
>>> Take a look at Oswald's after-capture photos and tell us that he couldn't pass for 30 or more. Take a look at Oswald's thick neck and tell us that wouldn't add several pounds visually. (@Lurkers: Author Dan deLillo wrote something to the effect that Oswald had the 'thick neck of a fullback'). And clothing will looker lighter in bright sunlight especially when contrasted with deep shadow.

[Bill Chapman]

Is this supposed to impress anyone?  I could just as easily say that Hill, Willis, Arnold, and Hoffman saw the shooter whether you like it or not.

Sorry, Oswald didn't have a bald spot.  Nor was he a "colored man".

Euins saw a white spot, 2'5" back from the hairline at the front
Same as Oswald's.

Point out where your 'witnesses' saw a rifle being aimed at something. Anything.
Jean Hill years later said she didn't see a shooter.

[Ray Mitcham]

Euins saw a white spot, 2'5" back from the hairline at the front
Same as Oswald's.

Jean Hill years later said she didn't see a shooter.

Please supply evidence for the above statement.

[John Iacoletti]

>>> Same Iacoletti canned troll-$peak

Says the guy getting ready to spew another litany of irrelevancies.

Neither did at least 6 people in the TSBD alone.
>>> Oswald thus blended in with your gang of 6+. Marine training, you see. Blend in with the local yokels when attempting to lessen 'eyes on'

Is this pithy remark supposed to change the relevance of the supposed "no alibi" "evidence"?

"Oswald's rifle".  LOL.
>>> Nah. Hidell's 

Is this pithy remark supposed to make it "Oswald's rifle"?

CE 399 can't be connected with the murder in any way.
>>> Cool. Any idea what caused the significantly-flattened butt end?

Lots of ideas can be dreamed up.  Just no evidence for any particular one.

Any idea why you 'researchers' don't post that butt-end view?

I don't know who you're referring to.

His job was getting books out of boxes.
>>> Did his job description include pointing boxes out a window aimed straight down Elm?

What makes you think he "pointed boxes out a window aimed straight down Elm"?

There's no way to determine who moved the boxes, or when, or why
>>> There's a way to determine the odds of having Oswald's prints on two corners of a box in a window aimed straight down Elm

Really, now?  Go for it.  Show your work.

and by "close match", you mean wrong height, wrong age, wrong weight, and wrong clothing
>>> Take a look at Oswald's after-capture photos and tell us that he couldn't pass for 30 or more. Take a look at Oswald's thick neck and tell us that wouldn't add several pounds visually.

Is this pithy remark supposed to change the fact that Brennan's description wasn't a "close match" to Oswald?

[John Iacoletti]

Euins saw a white spot, 2'5" back from the hairline at the front
Same as Oswald's.

Are you channeling Euins now?  How do you know he's describing anything that's the "same as Oswald's"?

Point out where your 'witnesses' saw a rifle being aimed at something. Anything.

First you make an issue of your "witnesses" seeing a rifle at all (or what they thought was a rifle).  When that wasn't unique enough, then you decide to make an "aimed at something" distinction.  Nice special pleading.

How would any witnesss know whether or not a "rifle" was being aimed at something?

Jean Hill years later said she didn't see a shooter.

"If memory serves", right?  Actually, you have it backwards.  But so what?  Years later Brennan said he saw the president's head explode.  The point is, you either recognize that witness testimony is unreliable or you don't.  Gorillas playing basketball and all that.