Umbrella Man: Suspicious

[John Iacoletti]

If there weren’t multiple witnesses who saw somebody pull a trigger, then why does “Richard” lie and say they did?

[Richard Smith]

"And, of course, a witness did literally see him pull the trigger.   It's a slam dunk of guilt."

This is it!
This is the moment six decades of doubt and uncertainty come to an end.

Who was the witness Mr Smith?
Who literally saw Oswald pull the trigger?

I can't wait for this whole issue to be put to bed.

You know the answer.  Do you just want to go round and round about it?  Markham saw the shooting.  To fire a gun, you have to "pull the trigger."  In addition, as I pointed out before we go down this rabbit hole, numerous witnesses identified Oswald at the scene at the moment of the shooting with a gun in his hand.  No other person with a gun in their hand was seen.  On planet Earth, and not down the pedantic contrarian rabbit hole, this can be described as seeing the shooter.   Unless you think the shooter was the Invisible Man.  Foks in Ford's Theatre heard a gunshot, looked in the direction it came from to see John Wilkes Booth holding a gun at Lincolns' head.  What logical inference can be drawn from this situation?  Why would anyone take issue with the conclusion that multiple witnesses saw the shooter (i.e. the only person holding a gun at the moment of the shooting)?  This is just typical contrarian nonsense to deflect from the evidence.  Multiple witnesses place LHO at the scene of the Tippit shooting with a gun in his hand.  Oswald was arrested a short distance away, after resisting arrest, with a gun and the same two brands of ammo used in the murder.  It's a literal slam dunk of guilt.

[John Iacoletti]

More “Richard Smith” BS. First of all, Acquilla Clemons described a different person with a gun in his hand. Second of all, the witnesses that picked Oswald did so from unfair, biased lineups, or by being shown a single mugshot of Oswald months later. Third of all, only one brand of ammo was (allegedly) found on Oswald’s person (hours after he was already arrested and searched), and Remington and Winchester bullets were by far the most common .38 ammo. This is like making a big deal about Oswald drinking a Coca-Cola instead of an RC Cola.

[John Iacoletti]

First, “Richard” says that “numerous witnesses confirmed that he was the person who pulled the trigger”, which is a lie. Then he changes it to, “numerous witnesses identified Oswald at the scene at the moment of the shooting with a gun in his hand”, which is also a lie.

If the truth is on your side, you don’t need to lie about the evidence.

[Richard Smith]

BANG - turn to see a man pointing a gun at a person who was just shot.  Contrarian - no witness saw the suspect shoot the victim.  LOL.  They just saw the literal smoking gun.  Unreal.  An invisible man might have been present.  It's possible.

[Jerry Organ]

BANG - turn to see a man pointing a gun at a person who was just shot.  Contrarian - no witness saw the suspect shoot the victim.  LOL.  They just saw the literal smoking gun.  Unreal.  An invisible man might have been present.  It's possible.

With some police shootings of minorities, it's the opposite. An invisible "gun" is "seen" in the hand of the compliant "suspect" by a racist officer, then after "appropriate measures" (learned in so-called "training"), the now-dead suspect's "gun" is no longer seen.

[Bill Chapman]

You know the answer.  Do you just want to go round and round about it?  Markham saw the shooting.  To fire a gun, you have to "pull the trigger."  In addition, as I pointed out before we go down this rabbit hole, numerous witnesses identified Oswald at the scene at the moment of the shooting with a gun in his hand.  No other person with a gun in their hand was seen.  On planet Earth, and not down the pedantic contrarian rabbit hole, this can be described as seeing the shooter.   Unless you think the shooter was the Invisible Man.  Foks in Ford's Theatre heard a gunshot, looked in the direction it came from to see John Wilkes Booth holding a gun at Lincolns' head.  What logical inference can be drawn from this situation?  Why would anyone take issue with the conclusion that multiple witnesses saw the shooter (i.e. the only person holding a gun at the moment of the shooting)?  This is just typical contrarian nonsense to deflect from the evidence.  Multiple witnesses place LHO at the scene of the Tippit shooting with a gun in his hand.  Oswald was arrested a short distance away, after resisting arrest, with a gun and the same two brands of ammo used in the murder.  It's a literal slam dunk of guilt.

billchapman

[Bill Chapman]

More “Richard Smith” BS. First of all, Acquilla Clemons described a different person with a gun in his hand. Second of all, the witnesses that picked Oswald did so from unfair, biased lineups, or by being shown a single mugshot of Oswald months later. Third of all, only one brand of ammo was (allegedly) found on Oswald’s person (hours after he was already arrested and searched), and Remington and Winchester bullets were by far the most common .38 ammo. This is like making a big deal about Oswald drinking a Coca-Cola instead of an RC Cola.

MOST of all:
Dr Pepper was Oswald's choice, not RC Cola. Or Coca-Cola
There was a Dr Pepper machine outside the Domino Room
Yet Oswald winds up on the second floor with a Coke instead

SECONDLY
This particular image uses characters that mimic Oswald's 'type'
(Someone here described Oswald as 'shabby')



THIRDLY
Did anyone report seeing anything AC said she saw?