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

[Walt Cakebread]

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

is this thread about the gun found?

This thread is NOT about the gun that was recovered....   It is an attempt to determine how many readers can clearly see that Lee Oswald had a rock solid alibi.  He said he saw an event that occurred near the 1st floor lunchroom at about 12:26  / 12:27.
He had to have been there in that 1st floor lunchroom to have witnessed Junior Jarman and Harold Norman walk by that lunchroom.   Since he was in that 1st floor lunchroom he couldn't have been on the sixth floor at the time that JFK was murdered.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

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

The stairs, for instance

billchapman

From an account by Roy Lewis, one of the "order fillers" for the TSBD ("No More Silence", pg. 84):

"We were all good friends on the job, but after work we hardly associated. But we did have quite a bit of fun on the job racing up and down the elevators to the floors filling orders. Sometimes if you were on one of the floors by yourself somebody would sneak up and you'd never know they were there. They might go up on the floor above you...But they could walk down the stairway, and a lot of times they'd be on you before you'd know it."

"They could walk down the stairway" and "they'd be on you before you'd know it."

Just one account but it seems the wooden stairs were quieter or less "creaky"? then you'd think.

Also: Williams et al. said they ran to the west side of the floor right after the shooting to get a better look. Seems to me they wouldn't be able to hear anyone "rushing" down from there? Apparently they didn't hear Baker and Truly? Or did they go down before then?

[Richard Smith]

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.

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.

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.

You don't believe that the presence of Oswald's rifle at the crime scene is highly incriminatory absent some explanation of its presence from Oswald!  Particularly given Oswald's actions in fleeing the scene and murdering a police officerless than an hour later.  Your rebuttal to this is that some witnesses who claimed to see the person in the TSBD from the street charactered his shirt color or hair inaccurately.  And that Oswald's rifle COULD have been planted even though there is not a scintilla of evidence of such.  Wow.  Brennan explained his initial reasons for not identifying Oswald.  It had nothing to do with any ambiguity about who he saw.  He testified under oath that the shooter was Oswald.  Does every witness have to be like a circus performer and estimate someone's age with exact precision to be credible?  He didn't claim the shooter was 75 years old.  But if you think this kind of pedantic nonsense rebuts the implications of Oswald's rifle being left at the crime scene, then take this argument to Illinois and defend the maniac who shot up that parade.  Maybe his rifle was planted as well.  I'm sure some citizen under sniper attack might have described his age or shirt color imprecisely. 

[Dan O'meara]

You don't believe that the presence of Oswald's rifle at the crime scene is highly incriminatory absent some explanation of its presence from Oswald!

The presence of the rifle is massively incriminating. It's the most incriminating piece of evidence there is. As far as I'm concerned, that's the point of the rifle - to be incriminating!

Particularly given Oswald's actions in fleeing the scene and murdering a police officerless than an hour later.  Your rebuttal to this is that some witnesses who claimed to see the person in the TSBD from the street charactered his shirt color or hair inaccurately.

My rebuttal is that almost all the available evidence regarding who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald:
Rowland, Roberts and Fischer all appear to describe the same man and that he was wearing clothes Oswald wasn't wearing and didn't own. Three independent eye-witness testimonies.
Euins is emphatic about the bald spot on the shooters head.
Garner never saw Oswald supposedly hurrying down the stairs - because he didn't hurry down the stairs, because he wasn't on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting.
He was in the Domino Room as he claims he was and this is confirmed by his observation of Jarman and Norman after they entered the rear door and were making their way to the west elevator. If they'd used the east elevator he wouldn't have seen them but it is because they had to walk around to the west one they came into view.

You can try and brush this all off all you want but it won't go away.

And that Oswald's rifle COULD have been planted even though there is not a scintilla of evidence of such.  Wow.

If Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting, and the available evidence dictates he wasn't, then the rifle was planted there to frame him. What possible evidence could there be for someone placing the rifle in it's hiding place? Film footage?

Brennan explained his initial reasons for not identifying Oswald.  It had nothing to do with any ambiguity about who he saw.  He testified under oath that the shooter was Oswald.

Nevertheless, he refused to identify Oswald and his reasons for not doing so are weak sauce indeed.

Does every witness have to be like a circus performer and estimate someone's age with exact precision to be credible?  He didn't claim the shooter was 75 years old.  But if you think this kind of pedantic nonsense rebuts the implications of Oswald's rifle being left at the crime scene, then take this argument to Illinois and defend the maniac who shot up that parade.  Maybe his rifle was planted as well.  I'm sure some citizen under sniper attack might have described his age or shirt color imprecisely.

Wow.
I'll ignore the more outlandish parts of this section of your post.
Brennan states that the man he saw on the 6th floor appeared much older than Oswald. That's that.
His description of the shooter's movements after the assassination contradicts the WC's account, which left barely three seconds for Oswald to get in position on the 2nd floor looking calm and not out of breath. That's that.

[Bill Chapman]

The presence of the rifle is massively incriminating. It's the most incriminating piece of evidence there is. As far as I'm concerned, that's the point of the rifle - to be incriminating!

My rebuttal is that almost all the available evidence regarding who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald:
Rowland, Roberts and Fischer all appear to describe the same man and that he was wearing clothes Oswald wasn't wearing and didn't own. Three independent eye-witness testimonies.
Euins is emphatic about the bald spot on the shooters head.
Garner never saw Oswald supposedly hurrying down the stairs - because he didn't hurry down the stairs, because he wasn't on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting.
He was in the Domino Room as he claims he was and this is confirmed by his observation of Jarman and Norman after they entered the rear door and were making their way to the west elevator. If they'd used the east elevator he wouldn't have seen them but it is because they had to walk around to the west one they came into view.

You can try and brush this all off all you want but it won't go away.

If Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting, and the available evidence dictates he wasn't, then the rifle was planted there to frame him. What possible evidence could there be for someone placing the rifle in it's hiding place? Film footage?

Nevertheless, he refused to identify Oswald and his reasons for not doing so are weak sauce indeed.

Wow.
I'll ignore the more outlandish parts of this section of your post.
Brennan states that the man he saw on the 6th floor appeared much older than Oswald. That's that.
His description of the shooter's movements after the assassination contradicts the WC's account, which left barely three seconds for Oswald to get in position on the 2nd floor looking calm and not out of breath. That's that.

Says the guy who, some months ago, inferred that Oswald 'signed out' before leaving the building.

In addition, tell us why Oswald would have to look nervous, necessarily...  and why he would have to be out of breath, necessarily.

[Dan O'meara]

Says the guy who, some months ago, inferred that Oswald 'signed out' before leaving the building.

In addition, tell us why Oswald would have to look nervous, necessarily...  and why he would have to be out of breath, necessarily.

Ooh, did I "infer" it Bill. Naughty me.
Was that the same thread where you openly stated 50 employees had just "gone missing"?
There was no need for him to be out of breath as he hadn't hurried anywhere.
And no reason for him to look nervous as he hadn't shot anyone. 

LATER EDIT:

PS, great critique of the evidence presented pointing away from Oswald as the shooter.

[Walt Cakebread]

The presence of the rifle is massively incriminating. It's the most incriminating piece of evidence there is. As far as I'm concerned, that's the point of the rifle - to be incriminating!

My rebuttal is that almost all the available evidence regarding who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald:
Rowland, Roberts and Fischer all appear to describe the same man and that he was wearing clothes Oswald wasn't wearing and didn't own. Three independent eye-witness testimonies.
Euins is emphatic about the bald spot on the shooters head.
Garner never saw Oswald supposedly hurrying down the stairs - because he didn't hurry down the stairs, because he wasn't on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting.
He was in the Domino Room as he claims he was and this is confirmed by his observation of Jarman and Norman after they entered the rear door and were making their way to the west elevator. If they'd used the east elevator he wouldn't have seen them but it is because they had to walk around to the west one they came into view.

You can try and brush this all off all you want but it won't go away.

If Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting, and the available evidence dictates he wasn't, then the rifle was planted there to frame him. What possible evidence could there be for someone placing the rifle in it's hiding place? Film footage?

Nevertheless, he refused to identify Oswald and his reasons for not doing so are weak sauce indeed.

Wow.
I'll ignore the more outlandish parts of this section of your post.
Brennan states that the man he saw on the 6th floor appeared much older than Oswald. That's that.
His description of the shooter's movements after the assassination contradicts the WC's account, which left barely three seconds for Oswald to get in position on the 2nd floor looking calm and not out of breath. That's that.

The presence of the rifle is massively incriminating. It's the most incriminating piece of evidence there is. As far as I'm concerned, that's the point of the rifle - to be incriminating!

You're absolutely correct....Dan.    And the fact that Lee had Marina take his photo while holding a carcano similar to the carcano that was found where it had been well hidden beneath a pallet of books is also pretty convincing evidence that Lee owned a carcano.  The TSBD carcano may, or may not, be the same carcano that Lee is seen holding in that carnival rendition of a photo......But it makes no difference because that TSBD carcano was NOT fired that day.

So taken together the presence of the carcano....and a photo that seems to show him in possession  of that carcano is very difficult to refute.......BUT!!....Since I'm absolutely certain that Lee Oswald did NOT shoot anybody... that seemingly incriminating evidence   is very convincing that someone was setting him up to be the patsy.....  AND since it was the authorities ( The DPD and the FBI) who presented that lie to the public there can be little doubt about WHO set him up.

[Matt Grantham]

 Thanks to Walt, Dan and others for information on this If I had ever heard of this, I never comprehended its significance While not on the level of expertise as most here, I like to think I have gotten around for many years now and it is a pleasant surprise to still find out about something so significant

 I do have one question I thought I read something here that suggested Oswald's trip to the lunchroom for a coke may have been before Truly and Bakers arrival there around 12:32 (?) Is there any debate that he was there at 12:32 with Truly and Baker?