Poll claims Oswald seen as ......

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Any explanation I would offer would be something "you would take to mean". Not interested in feeding the Troll.

I would hardly call it a "giant leap" that someone who rejects nearly all the LN evidence (at times, claiming some covert element could have been forging or manipulating certain items) can't therefore be a JFK Conspiracy Theorist?

Well gee, I'm not an LNer because I'm not promoting a specific LN Theory. I'm just an honest person who sees the evidence for what it is. I'm a "Skeptic" when it comes to weak CT claims. At the same time, I acknowledge the agencies did some self-serving coverup, such as the Hosty Note being destroyed.

"Official fantasy narrative." This comes from a supposed agnostic, someone who says they don't know what happened. But he knows that the "official" story is a fantasy. And his counter explanation is nowhere to be found. He won't posit one.

In any case, it's been more than half a century since the event. Multiple government investigations by multiple generations of Americans and multiple news media investigations by multiple generations of reporters and journalists. Add to the work of historians and others who studied the lives of the major figures at that time. Hoover, LBJ et cetera. And they found nothing that supports this big "C" conspiracy (that the agnostics never challenge).

But all of this is simply dismissed out of hand as "official fantasy narrative."

Meanwhile, the conspiracy narrative over this time expands and gets more complicated. More people involved in either the event or the coverup as they jam this new information into their preconceived conspiracy.

[John Iacoletti]

I would hardly call it a "giant leap" that someone who rejects nearly all the LN evidence (at times, claiming some covert element could have been forging or manipulating certain items) can't therefore be a JFK Conspiracy Theorist?

Who claimed that some covert element could have been forging or manipulating certain items? And how does that translate to multiple people anyway?

Well gee, I'm not an LNer because I'm not promoting a specific LN Theory. I'm just an honest person who sees the evidence for what it is.

If you really saw the evidence for what it is, you wouldn’t be the slightest bit convinced by it.

I'm a "Skeptic" when it comes to weak CT claims. At the same time, I acknowledge the agencies did some self-serving coverup, such as the Hosty Note being destroyed.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory.

[John Iacoletti]

"Official fantasy narrative." This comes from a supposed agnostic, someone who says they don't know what happened. But he knows that the "official" story is a fantasy.

Even if it happened to be correct, it’s still a fantasy because it relies on unsubstantiated assertions and conjecture.

And his counter explanation is nowhere to be found. He won't posit one.

You make it sound like inventing fantasy narratives is a good thing. Why invent another one when the first one isn’t even demonstrable? Just so you can focus on that instead of justifying your own? Yes, if you’re honest.

In any case, it's been more than half a century since the event. Multiple government investigations by multiple generations of Americans and multiple news media investigations by multiple generations of reporters and journalists.

False appeal to authority. They all relied on the same bogus set of assumptions and conjecture and the same weak and inauthenticatable evidence.

Meanwhile, the conspiracy narrative over this time expands and gets more complicated. More people involved in either the event or the coverup as they jam this new information into their preconceived conspiracy.

There is no “the conspiracy narrative”.

[Martin Weidmann]

Any explanation I would offer would be something "you would take to mean". Not interested in feeding the Troll.

I would hardly call it a "giant leap" that someone who rejects nearly all the LN evidence (at times, claiming some covert element could have been forging or manipulating certain items) can't therefore be a JFK Conspiracy Theorist?

Well gee, I'm not an LNer because I'm not promoting a specific LN Theory. I'm just an honest person who sees the evidence for what it is. I'm a "Skeptic" when it comes to weak CT claims. At the same time, I acknowledge the agencies did some self-serving coverup, such as the Hosty Note being destroyed.

I'm not an LNer because I'm not promoting a specific LN Theory.

Such delusion.... all you do is promote the WC narrative. That's the only LN theory there is. There might be slight differences on minor points between the opinions of individual LNs, but at the end of the day there is only one gospel for you guys.

I'm just an honest person who sees the evidence for what it is.

Great. So am I, and I am sure, so is John as well. And as honest men we can disagree, can't we, so what exactly is your problem again?

Oh, wait... is your honesty perhaps of the kind that whatever you see in the evidence must be the truth and no other truly honest person can see anything else? Because that's what it frequently looks like when I read your posts...

I'm a "Skeptic" when it comes to weak CT claims.

And I am a skeptic when it comes to weak LN claims, so again, what's your problem exactly?

At the same time, I acknowledge the agencies did some self-serving coverup, such as the Hosty Note being destroyed.

And, at the same time, I acknowledge that the BY photos are most likely authentic (they just don't prove what the LNs claim they do) and I accept that Oswald most likely isn't the innocent bystander who just got caught up in this thing, as some CT believe.

[Martin Weidmann]

With all these diversions going on, let's not forget that Richard Smith still hasn't presented even a shred of evidence for his claims that Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired and that he managed to go down the stairs, within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot, without being noticed by anybody.

As this is just about the biggest crux of the Kennedy assassination and the Oswald lone gunman scenario, one would expect that after nearly six decades somebody somewhere would be able to provide this basic evidence.

[Richard Smith]

With all these diversions going on, let's not forget that Richard Smith still hasn't presented even a shred of evidence for his claims that Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired and that he managed to go down the stairs, within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot, without being noticed by anybody.

As this is just about the biggest crux of the Kennedy assassination and the Oswald lone gunman scenario, one would expect that after nearly six decades somebody somewhere would be able to provide this basic evidence.

Such a weak deflection.  Run, Martin, run.  The evidence of Oswald's presence on the 6th floor has been documented in several investigations.  It has been widely known and available to the public for six decades.  You are aware of that evidence.  There is no need for me or anyone else to go down that rabbit hole with a contrarian like yourself once again.  The question under discussion is whether you believe Oswald could be the assassin given your conclusion that he didn't come down the stairs.  The only apparent way from him to have been on the 6th floor at the moment of the assassination and in the 2nd floor lunchroom in time to encounter Baker.  You have concluded that this was not possible, but have yet to confirm that you accept the only possible impliciation of YOUR conclusion that Oswald is innocent. 

So once again, do you believe Oswald is innocent because he didn't come down the stairs or not?  You have made this claime and thus far refused to answer this simple question.  A violation of forum rules. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Such a weak deflection.  Run, Martin, run.  The evidence of Oswald's presence on the 6th floor has been documented in several investigations.  It has been widely known and available to the public for six decades.  You are aware of that evidence.  There is no need for me or anyone else to go down that rabbit hole with a contrarian like yourself once again.  The question under discussion is whether you believe Oswald could be the assassin given your conclusion that he didn't come down the stairs.  The only apparent way from him to have been on the 6th floor at the moment of the assassination and in the 2nd floor lunchroom in time to encounter Baker.  You have concluded that this was not possible, but have yet to confirm that you accept the only possible impliciation of YOUR conclusion that Oswald is innocent. 

So once again, do you believe Oswald is innocent because he didn't come down the stairs or not?  You have made this claime and thus far refused to answer this simple question.  A violation of forum rules.

Hilarious... the guy who claims that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he managed to go down the stairs unnoticed within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot can and will not provide a shred of proof to support those claims.

The evidence of Oswald's presence on the 6th floor has been documented in several investigations.  It has been widely known and available to the public for six decades.  You are aware of that evidence. There is no need for me or anyone else to go down that rabbit hole with a contrarian like yourself once again.

So weak.... If that evidence is widely known and available for decades, it should be easy for you to present it here. Yet, you don't for one simple reason; you can't because there is no such evidence.

The only apparent way from him to have been on the 6th floor at the moment of the assassination and in the 2nd floor lunchroom in time to encounter Baker.  You have concluded that this was not possible, but have yet to confirm that you accept the only possible impliciation of YOUR conclusion that Oswald is innocent. 

So superficial? Explain how Oswald not being the shooter and not coming down the stairs implies exclusively that he was innocent?

So once again, do you believe Oswald is innocent because he didn't come down the stairs or not?  You have made this claime and thus far refused to answer this simple question.  A violation of forum rules.

If not answering a question is a violation of forum rules, then you have been guilty of violating that rule for weeks on end now. Even including in this post where you once again refuse to answer the question I have been asking from you since August.

As for me not answering your question, that's utter BS. That question has been answered a number of times in this thread. But I'll gladly answer it again;

So once again, do you believe Oswald is innocent because he didn't come down the stairs or not?

No. Oswald not coming down the stairs tells me nothing about his innocence or guilt. It might tell me something about him being on the 6th floor or not, when the shots were fired, but that's it.

[Richard Smith]

Hilarious... the guy who claims that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he managed to go down the stairs unnoticed within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot can and will not provide a shred of proof to support those claims.

The evidence of Oswald's presence on the 6th floor has been documented in several investigations.  It has been widely known and available to the public for six decades.  You are aware of that evidence. There is no need for me or anyone else to go down that rabbit hole with a contrarian like yourself once again.

So weak.... If that evidence is widely known and available for decades, it should be easy for you to present it here. Yet, you don't for one simple reason; you can't because there is no such evidence.

The only apparent way from him to have been on the 6th floor at the moment of the assassination and in the 2nd floor lunchroom in time to encounter Baker.  You have concluded that this was not possible, but have yet to confirm that you accept the only possible impliciation of YOUR conclusion that Oswald is innocent. 

So superficial? Explain how Oswald not being the shooter and not coming down the stairs implies exclusively that he was innocent?

So once again, do you believe Oswald is innocent because he didn't come down the stairs or not?  You have made this claime and thus far refused to answer this simple question.  A violation of forum rules.

If not answering a question is a violation of forum rules, then you have been guilty of violating that rule for weeks on end now. Even including in this post where you once again refuse to answer the question I have been asking from you since August.

As for me not answering your question, that's utter BS. That question has been answered a number of times in this thread. But I'll gladly answer it again;

So once again, do you believe Oswald is innocent because he didn't come down the stairs or not?

No. Oswald not coming down the stairs tells me nothing about his innocence or guilt. It might tell me something about him being on the 6th floor or not, when the shots were fired, but that's it.

I've answered your question multiple times.  Here it is again.  The evidence of Oswald's presence on the 6th floor has been known and widely available from many sources for six decades.  We have discussed it many times.  You already know that evidence.  You don't accept it.  There is no reason to go down that rabbit hole over and over again to provide to deflect the issue to your bizarre contrarian responses on that topic.   You have reached a conclusion that Oswald didn't come down the stairs after the assassination but refuse to confirm that you accept the implications of YOUR own conclusion.

Here is the simple question for you once again.  Do you believe Oswald is innocent based on your conclusion that he didn't come down the stairs from the 6th floor or not?  How does Oswald commit the assassination from the 6th floor if he couldn't have been there according to you because the ONLY way to get to the 2nd floor from the 6th floor in the known timeframe is down those stairs?  The ones you concluded he didn't come down.  Why such a mighty struggle against YOUR own conclusion?  Why not just say that it is your conclusion that Oswald did not assassinate JFK because you have concluded that he didn't come down the stairs?  Why is that so hard?  It's YOUR conclusion.