Poll claims Oswald seen as ......

[John Iacoletti]

Oswald left evidence of his involvement of a crime on the 6th floor that occurred at 12:30. 

 

You haven’t even come close to proving this assertion.

[Richard Smith]

And here he is, proving my point;

yet again.

Why would someone else need to debunk YOUR conclusion

There is the twisted logic of somebody, who hasn't got anything conclusive to offer to support his own opinion, again. You don't need to debunk my conclusion. I've never asked you to do that. That's just a strawman you use to try to turn this thing around.

Instead I have been asking over and over again for an explanation from you for how Oswald could have come down the stairs unnoticed within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot. You just haven't got one, so instead you keep on repeating the same crap over and over again.

How and why would anyone ever "attempt to provide a plausible scenario for Oswald coming down the stairs"?  LOL. What does that gibberish even mean? 

If it is gibberish, then it is your own gibberish. You said it yourself; if Oswald didn't come down the stairs than he couldn't have been on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and at the 2nd floor lunchroom some 75 seconds later. That's why you need to provide at least a plausible scenario for Oswald coming down the stairs without being noticed by anybody! Got it?

There are no time machines to recreate to the exact second the movements of Oswald and the other parties that you cite as though they someone had tracked their movements with a stopwatch.  That is laughable.

Nobody - except you - mentioned a stopwatch and none was needed. It's basically very simple (although I'm pretty sure you still will pretend not to understand it) but we know for a fact that shots were fired and we know that the WC reconstruction showed what the time needed was for Baker and Truly to get to the 2nd floor lunchroom after those shots. If your claim is true, somewhere inbetween those two events, which are roughly 75 seconds apart, Oswald must have gone down the stairs without being noticed. So, how did he manage to do that?

Oswald left evidence of his involvement of a crime on the 6th floor that occurred at 12:30. 

BS. You assume that Oswald left evidence behind when you can't even put him on the 6th floor at 12:30. The WC used the same crappy "it was his rifle" argument to conclude that Oswald must have been on that floor. Even they did not have a shred of evidende to put Oswald on the 6th floor. It's fairytale! But even if it wasn't, in real life, even when the rifle belonged to Oswald (which is highly questionable), that still does not prove he put it there or actually was on the 6th floor at 12:30.

Oswald left evidence of his involvement of a crime on the 6th floor that occurred at 12:30.  He is seen on the 2nd floor a few minutes later.  The only way to get between those two points at that moment is the stairs.  Your silly analysis of witness recollections down to the second in no way whatsoever precludes Oswald from having used the stairs.

You still don't understand that "he must have done" isn't actually evidence of anything except your own stupidy.

I'm getting bored with this BS. You make claims you can not support with evidence. Talking to you is a complete waste of time.

Logic is not kind to you.  Here's an example.

If the evidence suggests that a person was in NY and then a few hours later in LA, then we know that this person took a plane that day to get there because that is the only means available to do so in the known timeframe.  We know this even if the evidence were otherwise insufficient to prove conclusively which plane they took or the exact second it took off.  There are two inferences that can be drawn from any attempt to suggest that this person did not take a plane that day.  First, that the information being relied upon by the individual making this claim (you) is insufficient or wrong to support this conclusion.  This is my position on your silly claim.   If the evidence is sufficient to prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 and then in the 2nd floor lunchroom, then we know without any doubt that he took the stairs and was not noticed.  It is possible because that is the only thing that could have happened under those circumstances. That doesn't need to be proven via a time machine.   Alternative, the only other inference that can be drawn is the person in question was not in one of these places.  This is your position, but you refuse to acknowledge it for some bizarre reason.  Again, do you believe that Oswald was innocent because the only implication that can be drawn from your analysis is that Oswald could not have made it from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor?  Why is it so hard for you to accept the only conclusion that can be drawn from your own claim?  It's a hilarious insight into the contrarian mind.  You take issue even with yourself.

[Jerry Organ]

Logic is not kind to you.  Here's an example.

If the evidence suggests that a person was in NY and then a few hours later in LA, then we know that this person took a plane that day to get there because that is the only means available to do so in the known timeframe.  We know this even if the evidence were otherwise insufficient to prove conclusively which plane they took or the exact second it took off.  There are two inferences that can be drawn from any attempt to suggest that this person did not take a plane that day.  First, that the information being relied upon by the individual making this claim (you) is insufficient or wrong to support this conclusion.  This is my position on your silly claim.   If the evidence is sufficient to prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 and then in the 2nd floor lunchroom, then we know without any doubt that he took the stairs and was not noticed.  It is possible because that is the only thing that could have happened under those circumstances. That doesn't need to be proven via a time machine.   Alternative, the only other inference that can be drawn is the person in question was not in one of these places.  This is your position, but you refuse to acknowledge it for some bizarre reason.  Again, do you believe that Oswald was innocent because the only implication that can be drawn from your analysis is that Oswald could not have made it from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor?  Why is it so hard for you to accept the only conclusion that can be drawn from your own claim?  It's a hilarious insight into the contrarian mind.  You take issue even with yourself.

The Kooks seem to be under the impression that they've proven Oswald was in the Domino Room at 12:25 to 12:28 (time varies by Loon), the Ninja Vicky Adams left the window immediately and was on the first floor in less than a minute, and that Garner was so disinterested in the assassination aftermath she had her eyes locked on the back stairs in less than a minute.

These guys hate authority, expert analysis and established procedure. They think they're smarter than everyone else. There's no reasoning with them; they'll just die off and fade away like the Lincoln Assassinologists who promoted their Vatican theory.

[Martin Weidmann]

Logic is not kind to you.  Here's an example.

If the evidence suggests that a person was in NY and then a few hours later in LA, then we know that this person took a plane that day to get there because that is the only means available to do so in the known timeframe.  We know this even if the evidence were otherwise insufficient to prove conclusively which plane they took or the exact second it took off.  There are two inferences that can be drawn from any attempt to suggest that this person did not take a plane that day.  First, that the information being relied upon by the individual making this claim (you) is insufficient or wrong to support this conclusion.  This is my position on your silly claim.   If the evidence is sufficient to prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 and then in the 2nd floor lunchroom, then we know without any doubt that he took the stairs and was not noticed.  It is possible because that is the only thing that could have happened under those circumstances. That doesn't need to be proven via a time machine.   Alternative, the only other inference that can be drawn is the person in question was not in one of these places.  This is your position, but you refuse to acknowledge it for some bizarre reason.  Again, do you believe that Oswald was innocent because the only implication that can be drawn from your analysis is that Oswald could not have made it from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor?  Why is it so hard for you to accept the only conclusion that can be drawn from your own claim?  It's a hilarious insight into the contrarian mind.  You take issue even with yourself.

If the evidence suggests that a person was in NY and then a few hours later in LA, then we know that this person took a plane that day to get there because that is the only means available to do so in the known timeframe.  We know this even if the evidence were otherwise insufficient to prove conclusively which plane they took or the exact second it took off.  There are two inferences that can be drawn from any attempt to suggest that this person did not take a plane that day.  First, that the information being relied upon by the individual making this claim (you) is insufficient or wrong to support this conclusion.  This is my position on your silly claim.

Except that my "silly" claim has nothing to do with a person being in NY and then in LA. It has to do with a guy who was seen in the 2nd floor lunchroom roughly some 75 seconds after the last shot and who you claim, without any evidence whatsoever, was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. Or, to put it in words you may understand; you see a guy in LA and claim that he must have taken a plane because you believe he was in NY a few hours earlier. That's how pathetic your position is.

If the evidence is sufficient to prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 and then in the 2nd floor lunchroom, then we know without any doubt that he took the stairs and was not noticed.

"If the evidence is sufficient" ? Really? What the hell do you mean with "sufficient"? There simply is no evidence, none, nada, to prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30. It doesn't exist outside your imagination.

What in the world does it take to make you understand that your opinions and assumptions are not evidence?

But you have proven my point;

This is why Richard will never ever attempt to provide a plausible scenario for Oswald coming down the stairs. He simply he hasn't got one.

once again.....
 

[Martin Weidmann]

The Kooks seem to be under the impression that they've proven Oswald was in the Domino Room at 12:25 to 12:28 (time varies by Loon), the Ninja Vicky Adams left the window immediately and was on the first floor in less than a minute, and that Garner was so disinterested in the assassination aftermath she had her eyes locked on the back stairs in less than a minute.

These guys hate authority, expert analysis and established procedure. They think they're smarter than everyone else. There's no reasoning with them; they'll just die off and fade away like the Lincoln Assassinologists who promoted their Vatican theory.

All this misrepresentation of the evidence (typical for Jerry, btw) and crap, just because somebody dares to ask a LN for actual evidence for what he is claiming. Whenever a LN starts attacking people for the questions they ask, it's nothing more than an outright admission of the fact that all they have is hot air.

But since you talk about "expert analysis" why don't you give it a try and explain - without simply dismissing evidence you don't like - how Oswald could have come down the stairs unnoticed, within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot.

Go on then, show us you are actually the smart one here....

[John Iacoletti]

If the evidence is sufficient to prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30

But it’s not. Which is why your argument is invalid.

Alternative, the only other inference that can be drawn is the person in question was not in one of these places.  This is your position, but you refuse to acknowledge it for some bizarre reason.

This is yet another lame attempt at shifting the burden of proof. You can either demonstrate that Oswald was on the sixth floor and got to the second floor in 75 seconds unnoticed or you cannot. You don’t just get to assume that he did.

[John Iacoletti]

The Kooks seem to be under the impression that they've proven Oswald was in the Domino Room at 12:25 to 12:28 (time varies by Loon),

No, the kooks are under the impression that they’ve proven that Oswald killed JFK.

[Richard Smith]

The Kooks seem to be under the impression that they've proven Oswald was in the Domino Room at 12:25 to 12:28 (time varies by Loon), the Ninja Vicky Adams left the window immediately and was on the first floor in less than a minute, and that Garner was so disinterested in the assassination aftermath she had her eyes locked on the back stairs in less than a minute.

These guys hate authority, expert analysis and established procedure. They think they're smarter than everyone else. There's no reasoning with them; they'll just die off and fade away like the Lincoln Assassinologists who promoted their Vatican theory.

Yes, there is no hope of convincing them with logic, reason, or facts.  If they were capable of applying these concepts, they wouldn't have come to these conclusions in the first place.  What amuses me to no end is that someone like Martin is full of himself making a BS case that Oswald couldn't have gone down the stairs unnoticed based on his subjective second-by-second analysis of witness recollections.  As though the witnesses he cites couldn't be off by the few seconds it would have taken to allow Oswald to pass down the stairs.   Regardless, the stairs were the only means for Oswald to have made it from the 6th floor to the lunchroom in time for the Baker encounter.  If Oswald couldn't have used them as Martin concludes, then that eliminates Oswald as the assassin.  But Martin won't confirm this is his position.  The only possible implication of his analysis being valid.  He won't say that he believes Oswald is innocent or that there must have been a conspiracy to frame him even though that is the only possible conclusion to draw from accepting his claim.  Astounding.