No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD

[John Iacoletti]

The jobs would have to be on the motorcade route. How would that be arranged?

So the only way a president can be killed is on a motorcade route?

Lee Harvey Oswald's assassination of President Kennedy was a crime of opportunity. It was "chance" that got him the job at the TSBD. When he read about the Presidential motorcade coming past his place of employment--during his lunch hour--in several days time, he discerned the opportunity to enter the history books. After all, this is a man who wrote about his life describing it as an "historic diary".

That’s a cool story, bro. Is that supposed to prove that Oswald shot JFK?

[Ross Lidell]

So the only way a president can be killed is on a motorcade route?

That’s a cool story, bro. Is that supposed to prove that Oswald shot JFK?

So the only way a president can be killed is on a motorcade route?

It's the most likely way to assassinate the President. It has the advantage of the element of surprise (as Oswald proved).

The Trade Mart had extremely high security. It would have been searched thoroughly and then sealed off Thursday night or Friday morning.

The most likely attack on the President's life was from a tall building with a rifle as the motorcade went by.

In his book "Assignment Oswald", FBI Agent James Hosty said (words to the effect): The Secret Service had been running a bluff for decades. When accompanying a President on a motorcade through a major American city, they were "driving down the street hoping for the best".

Any group of sophisticated conspirators would have discerned just that and planned to kill President Kennedy by shooting from the rear after he drove by a tall building. The incompetent Secret Service never considered this as a real possibility. If they had: The follow-up car would have had a rear facing seat. Oswald would have been too fearful to fire one shot. If he was stupid enough to do so, there would be no need for Ruby on Sunday morning. Oswald would have died in a hail of machine-gun bullets fired from George Hickey's Colt AR-15.

That’s a cool story, bro. Is that supposed to prove that Oswald shot JFK?

No, it's not supposed to do that. Nothing would convince you that Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy: You dispute 100% of the evidence that points to Oswald as the assassin. You're incapable of weighing all of the facts and then deciding what is likely to have actually happened:

-- Oswald fired all the shots (from the 6th floor of the TSBD) that killed President Kenned.

-- Oswald fired some shots (from the 6th floor of the TSBD) and an accomplice fired additional shots from another location.

-- The real 6th floor shooter fired shots from the TSBD--and an innocent Oswald was blamed for the assassination.

-- The real 6th floor shooter fired shots from the TSBD and an accomplice fired additional shots from another location--and an innocent Oswald was blamed for the assassination.

Which is it John?
 

[John Iacoletti]

So the only way a president can be killed is on a motorcade route?

It's the most likely way to assassinate the President. It has the advantage of the element of surprise (as Oswald proved).

“As Oswald proved”. LOL.

I’m not interested in your wild-ass “most likely” guesses. You made the rather stunning claim that if Oswald hadn’t gotten a job at the TSBD, that JFK couldn’t have been assassinated. As if that’s the only possible way to kill somebody.

No, it's not supposed to do that. Nothing would convince you that Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy: You dispute 100% of the evidence that points to Oswald as the assassin.

Don’t blame me because your evidence sucks.

-- Oswald fired all the shots (from the 6th floor of the TSBD) that killed President Kenned.

-- Oswald fired some shots (from the 6th floor of the TSBD) and an accomplice fired additional shots from another location.

-- The real 6th floor shooter fired shots from the TSBD--and an innocent Oswald was blamed for the assassination.

-- The real 6th floor shooter fired shots from the TSBD and an accomplice fired additional shots from another location--and an innocent Oswald was blamed for the assassination.

Which is it John?

There no compelling evidence for any of those scenarios. Are they supposed to be exhaustive?

Unlike you. I don’t just pick a story and decree it as a fact until somebody proves me wrong. There’s nothing at all rational about that.

[Ross Lidell]

“As Oswald proved”. LOL.

I’m not interested in your wild-ass “most likely” guesses. You made the rather stunning claim that if Oswald hadn’t gotten a job at the TSBD, that JFK couldn’t have been assassinated. As if that’s the only possible way to kill somebody.

Don’t blame me because your evidence sucks.

There no compelling evidence for any of those scenarios. Are they supposed to be exhaustive?

Unlike you. I don’t just pick a story and decree it as a fact until somebody proves me wrong. There’s nothing at all rational about that.

There no compelling evidence for any of those scenarios. Are they supposed to be exhaustive?

You hide behind the Sergeant Schulz mantra: "I know nothing".

If there's no compelling evidence for those "most likely" scenarios, John: How WAS President Kennedy assassinated in Dealey Plaza, Dallas TX on 22 November 1963?

For someone who possesses an extensive knowledge of details about the assassination of President Kennedy, it beggars belief that you have not reached a conclusion as to how it was done?

?  The conspirators were too smart for you, John?

?  Not willing to reveal your opinion because you are afraid of it being forensically scrutinized?

[John Iacoletti]

If there's no compelling evidence for those "most likely" scenarios, John: How WAS President Kennedy assassinated in Dealey Plaza, Dallas TX on 22 November 1963?

I don’t know and neither do you.

The “most likely scenario” is the null hypothesis until anyone proves otherwise, your constant desperate attempts to shift the burden away from proving your own claims notwithstanding.

[Ross Lidell]

I don’t know and neither do you.

The “most likely scenario” is the null hypothesis until anyone proves otherwise, your constant desperate attempts to shift the burden away from proving your own claims notwithstanding.

Again!!!

For someone who possesses an extensive knowledge of details about the assassination of President Kennedy, it beggars belief that you have not reached a conclusion as to how it was done?

John, I'm starting continuing to think that you're just an undeclared contrarian.

[Martin Weidmann]

Again!!!

For someone who possesses an extensive knowledge of details about the assassination of President Kennedy, it beggars belief that you have not reached a conclusion as to how it was done?

John, I'm starting continuing to think that you're just an undeclared contrarian.

You are a one trick pony.

Just because you have made it easy on yourself and have jumped to the "most likely" scenario just so you can have a highly speculative opinion, doesn't mean others have to do the same.

[John Iacoletti]

Again!!!!

Stop shifting the burden of proof and explain what evidence justifies your chosen conclusion.