The Position of the Bolt on the MC

[Dan O'meara]

I'm assuming you are familiar with the concept of framing someone for an act they didn't commit.
You seem to be describing Oswald being shot actually committing the act.

[Charles Collins]

I have read your post a few times and I'm not quite sure how that is a way to frame him.
Can you elaborate?

Shoot him in the act.

[Dan O'meara]

Shoot him in the act.

How is that framing him?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Shoot him in the act.

Yep, shoot him in the TSBD and then plant the rifle. Then have about 6-8 people planted in the crowd who would say, "I saw him shoot JFK."

Just as, it's claimed, they had all of those witnesses say he shot Tippit or was at the scene during the shooting or fleeing it with the revolver in his hand. They all were coerced or manipulated into saying it was Oswald.

The claim by the Oswald defenders is you can't place him in that window at the time of the shooting. Then the Oswald defenders say all of the evidence was planted or manufactured. So why didn't they manufacture 6-8 witnesses to say they saw him fire the rifle?

They don't like questions like this. Especially the "I'm not a conspiracist" types who should like these questions if they're here to discuss the event.

[Charles Collins]

How is that framing him?

If you are going to frame someone, don’t pussyfoot around. Make it look like he was in the act of assassinating JFK and shoot him right then and there. The details are surely within the very capable imaginations of you guys…

[Dan O'meara]

This is better than I could've hoped for - two for the price of one.
Firstly Steve's:

Yep, shoot him in the TSBD and then plant the rifle. Then have about 6-8 people planted in the crowd who would say, "I saw him shoot JFK."

Just as, it's claimed, they had all of those witnesses say he shot Tippit or was at the scene during the shooting or fleeing it with the revolver in his hand. They all were coerced or manipulated into saying it was Oswald.

The claim by the Oswald defenders is you can't place him in that window at the time of the shooting. Then the Oswald defenders say all of the evidence was planted or manufactured. So why didn't they manufacture 6-8 witnesses to say they saw him fire the rifle?

They don't like questions like this. Especially the "I'm not a conspiracist" types who should like these questions if they're here to discuss the event.

I accept the credible evidence that it was not Oswald on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination and, as such, that automatically makes me a Conspiracy Theorist. But I'm not some Tinfoil "everything is faked" bullsh%t merchant. So the tactic of putting me in with this crowd doesn't wash. I believe Oswald shot Tippit and that he was on the run the second he left the TSBD building, so your weak-arsed argument that "it's just like the Tippit shooting" can be shoved.
It's an infamous tactic of LNer zealots to bundle together all CTers as if they're the same thing - LNers are the same thing, CTers are not. But when the going gets hot (as it is just about to) it's a convenient ploy.
That there can be a massive conspiracy in which everyone can be involved is Magical Thinking, so we can dispense with the notion of having "6-8 people planted in the crowd". Unlike the four actual eye-witnesses who all describe the same clothing worn by the shooter but not owned by Oswald. This, by itself, is enough to cast enormous doubt regarding the identification of Oswald as the shooter, particularly as all four eye-witnesses describe the same type of clothing.

Now Charles:

"If you are going to frame someone, don’t pussyfoot around. Make it look like he was in the act of assassinating JFK and shoot him right then and there. The details are surely within the very capable imaginations of you guys…"

Again, here we are with the "you guys" tactic - all CTers are the same.
So, in Charles' imagination Oswald is in the SN with a rifle pointing it at JFK but not actually shooting - awesome stuff. Many TFers are green with envy at this horsesh$t.

Let's start with the simple stuff - a question to you both - who shoots Oswald?
This should be interesting 

[Walt Cakebread]

I wish 

Any credible evidence that exists concerning who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination rules out Oswald as the shooter.
Once the evidence is accepted and Oswald is no longer in the frame as the lone nut assassin, we enter the dreaded realms of CONSPIRACY.
One of the first realisations is that the carcano is no longer required to be the assassination weapon. If Oswald did it then he must have used the carcano. But the evidence tells us he wasn't the shooter so the carcano is no longer a necessity. A "proper" rifle could be used. The function of the carcano is to frame Oswald. It is this piece of evidence, above anything, that points to Oswald as the guilty party.

As a thought experiment, I wonder if any LNer can come up with a better way to frame Oswald than leaving his weapon at the scene of the crime. It's just a thought experiment. Put aside your deep held beliefs for a moment...
Can you think of a better way?
Can you think of a simpler way?

I wonder if any LNer can come up with a better way to frame Oswald than leaving his weapon at the scene of the crime.

Leaving a throw down gun at the scene of a murder has been used to implicate the patsy since the  invention of the gun.

Crooked cops like to use that strategy .....  When they need to eliminate a threat who knows too much about their criminal dealings they will kill the threat and leave a gun near the body that can be traced to some poor not to bright sucker.

In the case of the murder of JFK the conspirators realized that they had a perfect patsy because they learned that he had played the role of an attempted assassin at the Walker house in April.  They appealed to his ego by telling him that he was a junior James Bond, and the sucker had fell for the idea that he could infiltrate Cuba just as he had Russia a couple of years earlier when his mission was  basically a test to see if he could pretend to be a disgruntled Marine and wanted to defect to the soviet Union.  He may have given them a copy of a photo that portrayed him as a well armed guerilla fighter who was armed with a menacing looking rifle but in reality it was a cheap piece of junk.  We know that he gave George De Morhenschildt a copy of that photo and perhaps  De M unwittingly told the conspirators that lee had taken a pot shot at Walker.         

[Charles Collins]

This is better than I could've hoped for - two for the price of one.
Firstly Steve's:

Yep, shoot him in the TSBD and then plant the rifle. Then have about 6-8 people planted in the crowd who would say, "I saw him shoot JFK."

Just as, it's claimed, they had all of those witnesses say he shot Tippit or was at the scene during the shooting or fleeing it with the revolver in his hand. They all were coerced or manipulated into saying it was Oswald.

The claim by the Oswald defenders is you can't place him in that window at the time of the shooting. Then the Oswald defenders say all of the evidence was planted or manufactured. So why didn't they manufacture 6-8 witnesses to say they saw him fire the rifle?

They don't like questions like this. Especially the "I'm not a conspiracist" types who should like these questions if they're here to discuss the event.

I accept the credible evidence that it was not Oswald on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination and, as such, that automatically makes me a Conspiracy Theorist. But I'm not some Tinfoil "everything is faked" bullsh%t merchant. So the tactic of putting me in with this crowd doesn't wash. I believe Oswald shot Tippit and that he was on the run the second he left the TSBD building, so your weak-arsed argument that "it's just like the Tippit shooting" can be shoved.
It's an infamous tactic of LNer zealots to bundle together all CTers as if they're the same thing - LNers are the same thing, CTers are not. But when the going gets hot (as it is just about to) it's a convenient ploy.
That there can be a massive conspiracy in which everyone can be involved is Magical Thinking, so we can dispense with the notion of having "6-8 people planted in the crowd". Unlike the four actual eye-witnesses who all describe the same clothing worn by the shooter but not owned by Oswald. This, by itself, is enough to cast enormous doubt regarding the identification of Oswald as the shooter, particularly as all four eye-witnesses describe the same type of clothing.

Now Charles:

"If you are going to frame someone, don’t pussyfoot around. Make it look like he was in the act of assassinating JFK and shoot him right then and there. The details are surely within the very capable imaginations of you guys…"

Again, here we are with the "you guys" tactic - all CTers are the same.
So, in Charles' imagination Oswald is in the SN with a rifle pointing it at JFK but not actually shooting - awesome stuff. Many TFers are green with envy at this horsesh$t.

Let's start with the simple stuff - a question to you both - who shoots Oswald?
This should be interesting 

You asked a question and I gave you an answer. I didn’t expect that you would accept it. You never accept anything other than your own misguided opinion. So arguing with you about the details of a hypothetical frame job would be insane. No thanks…