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

[John Iacoletti]

What I take issue with is the use of faulty logic, outright falsehoods, and bizarre, baseless theories

Says the guy who uses faulty logic, outright falsehoods, and bizarre, baseless theories.

Over and over and over.

[Richard Smith]

I don't have any preconceived bias for or against Oswald or a JFK conspiracy?LN conclusion.  The evidence makes that determination.


 Lee had a rock solid alibi. He saw Jarman & Norman walking  past the 1st floor lunch room as they traveled from the front of the TSBD to the 5th floor at 12:25. Jarman said that they departed from the front of the TSBD at about 12:25 and arrived on the fifth floor at about 12:28.

Jarman and Norman testified that they walked on the Houston street sidewalk on the east side of the TSBD. They walked from the front of the TSBD to the rear of the building and climbed the steps to the loading dock and then entered the shipping room by the back door.   Lee could have seen them in several places.......

Now then, Mr "smith".....  This the truth....Lee Oswald was in that 1st floor lunchroom at the time Jarman and Norman walked by....( 12:26)...So he couldn't have been on the sixth floor and murdering the President at 12:30....

Can you handle the truth.... , Mr "smith".... or are you too gutless.

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. 

[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.