I don't need to answer any of these questions. It's just a variation of the same game you play every time;
"Oswald is the killer unless you can give me the name, address and date of birth of the actual killer"
A ridiculous exaggeration. Even though this forum is not a court of law: An intellectual "burden of proof" rests with you to provide an alternate explanation of the Tippit murder... if Oswald did not do it. The fact that you do not (and are not even curious about what actually happened) marks you as a "game-playing contrarian".
Explain your "false premise" theory--with "evidence"--that the revolver which killed Tippit was not Oswald's. An assertion will not do.
I asked you for a plausible explanation why Oswald would have been in such a hurry to get to 10th/Patton that he needed to run or get transportation. You failed to answer twice. Why is that?
I asked you how you could be sure that the revolved now in evidence is in fact the same one as the one they took from Oswald at the Texas Theater. Again you failed to answer....
It seems you like asking questions while at the same time not answering questions you don't like .....
"Oswald is the killer unless you can give me the name, address and date of birth of the actual killer"
A ridiculous exaggeration. Even though this forum is not a court of law: An intellectual "burden of proof" rests with you to provide an alternate explanation of the Tippit murder... if Oswald did not do it. The fact that you do not (and are not even curious about what actually happened) marks you as a "game-playing contrarian".
In a court of law there is no obligation whatsoever for the defense to provide an alternative scenario. It's the prosecution that needs to prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt. The mere fact that you keep on demanding for alternative scenarios (in line with your "Oswald is guilty unless you can prove he isn't" mantra) and keep complaining about me being a contrarian only tells me that you know that your own case against Oswald simply isn't strong enough to withstand scrutiny. You are like a prosecutor who complains to the judge that the jury doesn't believe his narrative.....
And, I am most certainly curious about what actually happened. I just am willing to look at all the possibilities and weigh all the evidence. That's where you and I differ!
Explain your "false premise" theory--with "evidence"--that the revolver which killed Tippit was not Oswald's. An assertion will not do.I never said it was not Oswald's revolver. I can't say that simply because I do not know. But you don't get to assume that it was Oswald's revolver. You need to prove it... and John has already explained the problem with the chain of custody for the revolver. All we really know is that Gerald Hill, at the police station, pulled a revolver out of his pocket some 2 hours after Oswald's arrest, had a few officers mark it and and submitted into evidence.
Where did Hill get that revolver and how do we know it's the same one they took from Oswald at the Texas Theater?