Progress... Have we made any ?.....

[Dan O'meara]

This is just another example of faulty logic.  A suspect does not have a "rock solid" alibi by claiming to have seen others.  It works the other way.  Someone confirms that they saw the suspect at a time and place that precludes them from having committed the crime.  Even in your fantasy, it would still would not preclude Oswald from being on 6th floor.  Four minutes is plenty of time to walk up a few flights of stairs or taken the elevator.  The facts and evidence place LHO in the SN at 12:30.

"The facts and evidence place LHO in the SN at 12:30"

This is incorrect and is the key weakness at the heart of the LN narrative.
Almost every piece of evidence pertaining to who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald:

Three of the five witnesses who saw a man on the 6th floor at this time describe him wearing a white/very light coloured, open neck shirt. Oswald didn't wear such a shirt to work that day and didn't have one in his possessions.

Euins describes a distinctive bald spot on top of the shooter's head - something Oswald didn't have.

Dorothy Garner followed her work colleagues out to the back stairs in time to hear them rush down and was still there when Truly and Baker came up. There was no sign of Oswald supposedly heading down the stairs.

Oswald is reported seeing Jarman and Norman together. The only time during the lunch break that this could have occurred is when the two men came back into the building by the rear door. Oswald must have been on the first floor to witness this. According to their testimonies this can be placed around 12:25pm. The importance of this is that at least ten minutes earlier Arnold Rowland witnessed a white male carrying a rifle on the 6th floor.

Even Brennan, whose dubious and belated identification of Oswald is the single piece of evidence that places Oswald at the scene, describes the shooter as a much older man than Oswald. He also describes the shooter standing at the window, admiring his handiwork, as the presidential limo enters the underpass - in stark contrast with the WC narrative, which has Oswald rushing away from the SN in time for his rendezvous with Baker and Truly. In an indirect way this is supported by Hank Norman, who can hear the shells hitting the floor just above him, but doesn't hear anyone rushing away.

The facts and the evidence most certainly do not place Oswald in the SN at 12:30pm.

[Paul J Cummings]

Did I miss something or is this thread about the gun found? Thanks and I'll take your answer off the air.

[Rick Plant]

Question:....   Mauser or Carcano?    At this late date we should have reached a firm unanimous  conclusion about what kind of rifle was found buried beneath the pallet of books in the NW corner of the sixth floor.  I believe that we will never have 100% in agreement.... but at this late date and the solid photographic evidence available ( Alyea film and many others) we should be near 100% in agreement about that rifle. 

If we can't agree on the answer to this simple question ....then there is no hope of ever finding answers to the more important questions.  Like:....  How did Lee Oswald know that Junior Jarman and Harold Norman walked by the first floor lunchroom at 12:26??

Well, we know that Roger Craig stated that he witnessed a Mauser.

[Dan O'meara]

We also know Tom Alyea filmed the rifle being removed from it's hiding place and it wasn't a Mauser.

[Richard Smith]

"The facts and evidence place LHO in the SN at 12:30"

This is incorrect and is the key weakness at the heart of the LN narrative.
Almost every piece of evidence pertaining to who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald:

Three of the five witnesses who saw a man on the 6th floor at this time describe him wearing a white/very light coloured, open neck shirt. Oswald didn't wear such a shirt to work that day and didn't have one in his possessions.

Euins describes a distinctive bald spot on top of the shooter's head - something Oswald didn't have.

Dorothy Garner followed her work colleagues out to the back stairs in time to hear them rush down and was still there when Truly and Baker came up. There was no sign of Oswald supposedly heading down the stairs.

Oswald is reported seeing Jarman and Norman together. The only time during the lunch break that this could have occurred is when the two men came back into the building by the rear door. Oswald must have been on the first floor to witness this. According to their testimonies this can be placed around 12:25pm. The importance of this is that at least ten minutes earlier Arnold Rowland witnessed a white male carrying a rifle on the 6th floor.

Even Brennan, whose dubious and belated identification of Oswald is the single piece of evidence that places Oswald at the scene, describes the shooter as a much older man than Oswald. He also describes the shooter standing at the window, admiring his handiwork, as the presidential limo enters the underpass - in stark contrast with the WC narrative, which has Oswald rushing away from the SN in time for his rendezvous with Baker and Truly. In an indirect way this is supported by Hank Norman, who can hear the shells hitting the floor just above him, but doesn't hear anyone rushing away.

The facts and the evidence most certainly do not place Oswald in the SN at 12:30pm.

In the recent Illinois shooting, the sniper left his rifle at the scene.  It had a serial number.  It was traced to the shooter.  He was arrested.  There is no doubt of his guilt.  A rifle was left at the scene of the JFK assassination.  It had a serial number that was traced to LHO.  No other known person had access to that rifle.  Witnesses confirm a rifle was pointed out the 6th floor window.  Fired bullet casings from Oswald's rifle were found by that window.  Oswald's prints were on that rifle. Oswald had no alibi.  In fact, he fled the scene within minutes and was involved in the murder of a police officer (several witnesses ID him as the shooter).  He lied about the ownership of any rifle. When approached by the DPD at the Texas Theatre, he didn't ask what they wanted.  He pulled his gun and engaged in a struggle.   It's a slam dunk.  Pedantic nitpicking of minor witness descriptions is weak sauce considering they were describing a person on the 6th floor of a building.  Why is Brennan's ID dubious?  He explained that his initial hesitation to ID Oswald as the shooter was not based on any doubt of the issue.  It was based on fear for his safety.  There is nothing dubious about his identification.  He said the shooter was Oswald.

[John Iacoletti]

…aaaaand “Richard” regurgitates his litany of lies once again.

[Bill Chapman]

"The facts and evidence place LHO in the SN at 12:30"

This is incorrect and is the key weakness at the heart of the LN narrative.
Almost every piece of evidence pertaining to who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald:

Three of the five witnesses who saw a man on the 6th floor at this time describe him wearing a white/very light coloured, open neck shirt. Oswald didn't wear such a shirt to work that day and didn't have one in his possessions.

Euins describes a distinctive bald spot on top of the shooter's head - something Oswald didn't have.

Dorothy Garner followed her work colleagues out to the back stairs in time to hear them rush down and was still there when Truly and Baker came up. There was no sign of Oswald supposedly heading down the stairs.

Oswald is reported seeing Jarman and Norman together. The only time during the lunch break that this could have occurred is when the two men came back into the building by the rear door. Oswald must have been on the first floor to witness this. According to their testimonies this can be placed around 12:25pm. The importance of this is that at least ten minutes earlier Arnold Rowland witnessed a white male carrying a rifle on the 6th floor.

Even Brennan, whose dubious and belated identification of Oswald is the single piece of evidence that places Oswald at the scene, describes the shooter as a much older man than Oswald. He also describes the shooter standing at the window, admiring his handiwork, as the presidential limo enters the underpass - in stark contrast with the WC narrative, which has Oswald rushing away from the SN in time for his rendezvous with Baker and Truly. In an indirect way this is supported by Hank Norman, who can hear the shells hitting the floor just above him, but doesn't hear anyone rushing away.

The facts and the evidence most certainly do not place Oswald in the SN at 12:30pm.

'but doesn't hear anyone rushing away.'
Others didn't hear him rushing away either

The stairs, for instance


billchapman

[Dan O'meara]

In the recent Illinois shooting, the sniper left his rifle at the scene.  It had a serial number.  It was traced to the shooter.  He was arrested.  There is no doubt of his guilt.  A rifle was left at the scene of the JFK assassination.  It had a serial number that was traced to LHO.  No other known person had access to that rifle.  Witnesses confirm a rifle was pointed out the 6th floor window.  Fired bullet casings from Oswald's rifle were found by that window.  Oswald's prints were on that rifle. Oswald had no alibi.  In fact, he fled the scene within minutes and was involved in the murder of a police officer (several witnesses ID him as the shooter).  He lied about the ownership of any rifle. When approached by the DPD at the Texas Theatre, he didn't ask what they wanted.  He pulled his gun and engaged in a struggle.   It's a slam dunk.

Slam dunk?
There's not a single thing you list that says anything about Oswald taking the shots. Not one.
"It was Oswald's rifle therefore Oswald took the shots" - that's your argument? This kind of mentality is wide open to be fooled by a planted rifle. What better way to frame Oswald for the shooting of the President?
The fact of the matter is that any credible evidence that exists for who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald. It's a real problem for the LN narrative.

Pedantic nitpicking of minor witness descriptions is weak sauce considering they were describing a person on the 6th floor of a building.

Three eye-witnesses describe the man on the 6th floor wearing a white/light coloured, open neck shirt. Three!
They are describing clothing Oswald wasn't wearing and didn't own. This is not pedantic nit-picking.

Euins is emphatic about the shooter having a bald spot, something Oswald did not have. this is not pedantic nit-picking.

Dorothy Garner was perfectly placed to see Oswald hurrying down the stairs but she didn't see him. if she had she would have been a star witness but she wasn't even called to testify. this is not pedantic nit-picking.

Oswald's account of seeing Jarman and Norman places him exactly where he said he was at the time of the shooting - on the first floor. This takes place around 12:25pm and Arnold Rowland sees the man with the rifle on the 6th floor tens minutes earlier, around 12:15pm.
How this can be called "pedantic nit-picking" is baffling.

Why is Brennan's ID dubious?  He explained that his initial hesitation to ID Oswald as the shooter was not based on any doubt of the issue.  It was based on fear for his safety.  There is nothing dubious about his identification.  He said the shooter was Oswald.

Brennan's ID is dubious because he doesn't even make the ID at the time.
It's dubious because he describes the man on the 6th floor as appearing much older than Oswald.
It's dubious because it flatly contradicts the WC's own version of events, which has Oswald hurrying down to the 2nd floor whereas Brennan has the shooter standing around, admiring his handiwork, as the limo passes under the triple overpass.