A Rock Solid Alibi.....

[Martin Weidmann]

In order to get to the second floor break room where Truly and Baker encountered him, LHO would have had to leave the domino room, and walk across the first floor to the stairs. This would have had to occur immediately after the shots were fired in order for the timing to work out.

What do you mean by "In order for the timing to work out"?

It is nonsense. Oswald could have gone up to the 2nd floor lunchroom shortly before the shots were fired. I suppose this is where the bottle of Coke comes in. IIRC, Baker initially said that Oswald had the bottle in his hand, which means he had already been in the lunchroom long enough to operate the vendingmachine before Baker encountered him.

But that doesn't sit well for the 6th floor scenario and it would reduce the available time for Oswald to get to the lunchroom even further. That's why Baker scratched out the mentioning of the Coke bottle in his second affidavit. Without the bottle, he could claim he saw Oswald walk away from the dividing door, which of course would suggest he had just arrived there.

[Charles Collins]

In order to get to the second floor break room where Truly and Baker encountered him, LHO would have had to leave the domino room, and walk across the first floor to the stairs. This would have had to occur immediately after the shots were fired in order for the timing to work out.

What do you mean by "In order for the timing to work out"?

Baker and Truly were in the building and crossing the first floor towards the elevators/stairs within seconds of the shots. If LHO were actually in the domino room when the shots were fired then he would have had to leave the domino room immediately after the shots in order to be in the second floor lunchroom when Baker and Truly arrived on the second floor.

[Richard Smith]

Baker and Truly were in the building and crossing the first floor towards the elevators/stairs within seconds of the shots. If LHO were actually in the domino room when the shots were fired then he would have had to leave the domino room immediately after the shots in order to be in the second floor lunchroom when Baker and Truly arrived on the second floor.

Martin's endless contrarian game is to frame a discussion on reconstructing some unknowable event and interpreting any possible outcome in a way most favorable to Oswald.  For example, the movements of individuals in the building including Oswald down to a precise second.  No one, not even the actual participants, had that granular level of detail in their recollection of events.  This scenario, however, allows Martin to go on and on and on as though he has some point to make. 

The fact remains that the evidence places Oswald on the 6th floor at the moment of the assassination and then in the 2nd floor lunchroom when Baker arrives.  If Oswald was in both places, then it is implicit that we know he moved from point A to B without having to prove the unknowable second by second movements of everyone involved.  The best evidence that it could be done is that it was done.  Just because we can't know all the details doesn't mean we can't reach any conclusions.  All the pedantic, selective nitpicking of witness testimony to construct a narrative that he desires does not negate the evidence.  This is where he asks me to prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 as though that evidence is not widely known for nearly six decades.  He rejects it but is too cowardly to admit that he is a CTer who believes Oswald was framed.  Rather, like Inspector Clouseau, he suspects everyone and he suspects no one.  Round and round it goes.

[Martin Weidmann]

Martin's endless contrarian game is to frame a discussion on reconstructing some unknowable event and interpreting any possible outcome in a way most favorable to Oswald.  For example, the movements of individuals in the building including Oswald down to a precise second.  No one, not even the actual participants, had that granular level of detail in their recollection of events.  This scenario, however, allows Martin to go on and on and on as though he has some point to make. 

The fact remains that the evidence places Oswald on the 6th floor at the moment of the assassination and then in the 2nd floor lunchroom when Baker arrives.  If Oswald was in both places, then it is implicit that we know he moved from point A to B without having to prove the unknowable second by second movements of everyone involved.  The best evidence that it could be done is that it was done.  Just because we can't know all the details doesn't mean we can't reach any conclusions.  All the pedantic, selective nitpicking of witness testimony to construct a narrative that he desires does not negate the evidence.  This is where he asks me to prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 as though that evidence is not widely known for nearly six decades.  He rejects it but is too cowardly to admit that he is a CTer who believes Oswald was framed.  Rather, like Inspector Clouseau, he suspects everyone and he suspects no one.  Round and round it goes.

There he is again; dismissing everything he doesn't like and pushing the same old lies, for which, of course, he has not a shred of evidence.
It seems that Richard now actually believes the clear and obvious lies he has been repeating time after time.


The fact remains that the evidence places Oswald on the 6th floor at the moment of the assassination and then in the 2nd floor lunchroom when Baker arrives.

There is no evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor. Period! Your imagination is not evidence!

If Oswald was in both places, then it is implicit that we know he moved from point A to B without having to prove the unknowable second by second movements of everyone involved.The best evidence that it could be done is that it was done.

Hilarious, coming from the guy who can't prove that it actually was done and can't even explain how it could have been done. It's really pathetic.
If what's in your imagination is "the best evidence" than you've got nothing.

This is where he asks me to prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 as though that evidence is not widely known for nearly six decades.

If that evidence really exists (which it doesn't) and is widely known for 6 decades, it should be easy to produce, so why are you still failing to do so?

Wash, rinse and repeat.....

[Jerry Organ]

This is where he asks me to prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 as though that evidence is not widely known for nearly six decades.

If that evidence really exists (which it doesn't) and is widely known for 6 decades, it should be easy to produce, so why are you still failing to do so?

Wash, rinse and repeat.....

By "evidence", Martin, Cakebread, etc. means events (but just those that implicate Oswald as lone-assassin) must have been captured on Hollywood-quality 35mm film with Dolby Sound. Or they would need to witness it personally through time-travel. Normal vetted longstanding traditional means of evaluating evidence is not good enough in this case. Oswald has gotten a nearly-60 year intense defense which has led nowhere; if anything, it has deservingly earned the CTs ridicule such that some now won't own the title.

[Bill Chapman]

Bill Chapman

[Charles Collins]

My point is that in order for this so called “rock solid alibi” to be feasible, LHO would have had to walk across the first floor in plain view of the two others who said that they were on the first floor at that point in time. Neither one of them saw him.

LHO had the ability to slither around undetected. He acquired this ability when he was very young while staying at his aunt’s house (because his mother didn’t have the time or inclination to take care of him). So your image is appropriate there Bill.   

The second part of my point is that that ability to slither would also be applicable to getting from the sixth floor to the second floor.

Personally, I choose to not believe LHO’s obvious lie regarding where he was. And I really couldn’t care less whether others choose differently. I made the point. You can decide for yourself what you want to believe.

[Martin Weidmann]

By "evidence", Martin, Cakebread, etc. means events (but just those that implicate Oswald as lone-assassin) must have been captured on Hollywood-quality 35mm film with Dolby Sound. Or they would need to witness it personally through time-travel. Normal vetted longstanding traditional means of evaluating evidence is not good enough in this case. Oswald has gotten a nearly-60 year intense defense which has led nowhere; if anything, it has deservingly earned the CTs ridicule such that some now won't own the title.

By "evidence", Martin, Cakebread, etc. means events (but just those that implicate Oswald as lone-assassin) must have been captured on Hollywood-quality 35mm film with Dolby Sound.

No, that's just what some people complain about when they make a claim (like Oswald was on the 6th floor) without being able to present any evidence for it.

Normal vetted longstanding traditional means of evaluating evidence is not good enough in this case.

Why would that not be good enough? Just tell me what the evidence actually is, so that it can be evaluated. Go on then....

Oswald has gotten a nearly-60 year intense defense which has led nowhere; if anything, it has deservingly earned the CTs ridicule such that some now won't own the title.

Funny... Delusional, but funny nevertheless. Are you trying out for a job as stand up comedian, perhaps?

Why not stop whining about people who don't agree with you and start showing some conclusive evidence for once?