Poll claims Oswald seen as ......

[Bill Chapman]

"Richard" isn't interested in what anybody else has to say -- he's regurgitating from a script.

Says the 'Little Dictator'

[Richard Smith]

So many words.

You're a complete waste of time and oxygen. You are so damned arrogant that you actually think that your opinion is always the right one and, as a consequence, you don't need to pay any attention to what others say. You can always make up stuff as you go, right?

Btw, what is this "so many words" crap anyway? I've seen you use it time after time. Is it to signal that your brain has such a limited capacity that it can only process a certain (small) number of words in one go?

If you don't believe Oswald could have escaped the 6th floor unnoticed (as you have stated repeatedly as though a fact) then he obviously could not be the assassin.

Again, when did I ever claim that, "as though a fact"? This is what you get when you are so convinced of your own belief that you simply don't pay attention to what others actually say. Obviously, this lie is just another distraction to draw attention away from the fact that you can not explain how he could have done it. It's the strategy of a loser.

You claimed that Oswald could have gone down the stairs unnoticed. I've asked you for the evidence for that claim a thousand times by now. Where is? And if you haven't got it, just be honest for once and admit it, instead of desperately trying to turn the argument around.

Why is it so difficult for you to have the courage of your convictions instead of playing these games where you claim something is a fact but then deny the implications of your own claim?  It is embarrassing.

You mean the courage of my convictions as you (utterly mistaken and dishonestly) feel they should be. The only one making claims is you. According to you Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 on 11/22/63 (claim one), he was in the sn as the shooter who killed Kennedy (claim 2) and he managed to get downstairs unnoticed (claim 3). The implications of those claims are that you need to present evidence for them and, oh what a surprise, you haven't got any. So, deflection is the game. It's pathethic.

So angry.  Why start out every post with a rant and commentary with whomever you engaging?  That's a lot of emotion to expend about a topic that you purport not to care about and have no agenda. 

[Richard Smith]

The reason Garner did not see him is simple; he didn't come down the stairs."

It's a logical conclusion based on the known facts. If you disagree, feel free to prove me wrong   

Caught out in another logical contradiction and lie.  You have claimed over and over that Oswald couldn't go down the stairs from the 6th floor to the lunchroom unnoticed.  You stated that as a fact.  If Oswald couldn't go down the stairs unnoticed from the 6th floor as you claim (and he wasn't noticed doing so) and he obviously didn't take the elevator since it was still on the upper floors when Baker and Truly headed from the 1st to 2nd floor, then how could Oswald reach the lunchroom from the 6th floor?  He couldn't get there in your scenario.  There is no way to do so when you rule out using the stairs and the elevator was not used.  That is the position that you have taken.  You are a CTer by your own words.  Why not just admit it?  There are plenty of kooks who acknowledge they are CTers.  Why not come out of the closet and join them?  Have some courage for once.  You are here every waking moment nitpicking the evidence against Oswald while entertaining every baseless theory that could possibly lend itself to his innocence.  You are not only a CTer but a zealot for the cause.  Your unwillingness to admit that is a source of great humor.

"If Oswald had come down the stairs within 75 seconds after the shots, he would have been seen by Dorothy Garner, who was standing next to the stairs on the 4th floor.
She heard Adams and Styles going down on the stairs and saw Baker and Truly come up. Somewhere inbetween these two events Oswald would have be passing the 4th floor. The reason Garner did not see him is simple; he didn't come down the stairs."


"Except that I have never claimed he wasn't on the 6th floor nor that he couldn't reach the lunchroom unnoticed. That's just another one of your strawman."

[Martin Weidmann]

So angry.  Why start out every post with a rant and commentary with whomever you engaging?  That's a lot of emotion to expend about a topic that you purport not to care about and have no agenda.

Classic Richard Smith. Point out his lies and he will tell you that you are angry. Anything to stay clear of having to provide a plausible answer to the question how he thinks Oswald managed to get passed Dorothy Garner unnoticed. Now, there's a surprise....

As I said before, Richard is a complete waste of time and oxygen.

[Martin Weidmann]

Caught out in another logical contradiction and lie.  You have claimed over and over that Oswald couldn't go down the stairs from the 6th floor to the lunchroom unnoticed.  You stated that as a fact.  If Oswald couldn't go down the stairs unnoticed from the 6th floor as you claim (and he wasn't noticed doing so) and he obviously didn't take the elevator since it was still on the upper floors when Baker and Truly headed from the 1st to 2nd floor, then how could Oswald reach the lunchroom from the 6th floor?  He couldn't get there in your scenario.  There is no way to do so when you rule out using the stairs and the elevator was not used.  That is the position that you have taken.  You are a CTer by your own words.  Why not just admit it?  There are plenty of kooks who acknowledge they are CTers.  Why not come out of the closet and join them?  Have some courage for once.  You are here every waking moment nitpicking the evidence against Oswald while entertaining every baseless theory that could possibly lend itself to his innocence.  You are not only a CTer but a zealot for the cause.  Your unwillingness to admit that is a source of great humor.

"If Oswald had come down the stairs within 75 seconds after the shots, he would have been seen by Dorothy Garner, who was standing next to the stairs on the 4th floor.
She heard Adams and Styles going down on the stairs and saw Baker and Truly come up. Somewhere inbetween these two events Oswald would have be passing the 4th floor. The reason Garner did not see him is simple; he didn't come down the stairs."

"Except that I have never claimed he wasn't on the 6th floor nor that he couldn't reach the lunchroom unnoticed. That's just another one of your strawman."

It's not my problem that you don't understand the difference between a hypothesis and a factual claim.

If Oswald couldn't go down the stairs unnoticed from the 6th floor as you claim (and he wasn't noticed doing so) and he obviously didn't take the elevator since it was still on the upper floors when Baker and Truly headed from the 1st to 2nd floor, then how could Oswald reach the lunchroom from the 6th floor?  He couldn't get there in your scenario.

Indeed. And as you claim he was up on the 6th floor (for which you also have no evidence) I have asked you a thousand times to explain how Oswald managed to go down the stairs without Dorothy Garner seeing him.


There is no way to do so when you rule out using the stairs and the elevator was not used.  That is the position that you have taken.  You are a CTer by your own words.  Why not just admit it?

BS. Taking that position is simply accepting an obvious reality. It only makes me a CT in the eyes of a fanatical LN.

You are here every waking moment nitpicking the evidence against Oswald while entertaining every baseless theory that could possibly lend itself to his innocence

What's wrong with scrutinizing the evidence? The only person who could have a problem with that is somebody who simply doesn't have enough confidence in the evidence he is defending.
That same person would also call every theory that does not match his own opinion baseless. It's also the same person who is never able to provide conclusive evidence for his claims nor can he ever show why a theory is baseless.

Why not simply discussing the evidence instead of constantly whining about others?

[Richard Smith]

It's not my problem that you don't understand the difference between a hypothesis and a factual claim.

If Oswald couldn't go down the stairs unnoticed from the 6th floor as you claim (and he wasn't noticed doing so) and he obviously didn't take the elevator since it was still on the upper floors when Baker and Truly headed from the 1st to 2nd floor, then how could Oswald reach the lunchroom from the 6th floor?  He couldn't get there in your scenario.

Indeed. And as you claim he was up on the 6th floor (for which you also have no evidence) I have asked you a thousand times to explain how Oswald managed to go down the stairs without Dorothy Garner seeing him.


There is no way to do so when you rule out using the stairs and the elevator was not used.  That is the position that you have taken.  You are a CTer by your own words.  Why not just admit it?

BS. Taking that position is simply accepting an obvious reality. It only makes me a CT in the eyes of a fanatical LN.

You are here every waking moment nitpicking the evidence against Oswald while entertaining every baseless theory that could possibly lend itself to his innocence

What's wrong with scrutinizing the evidence? The only person who could have a problem with that is somebody who simply doesn't have enough confidence in the evidence he is defending.
That same person would also call every theory that does not match his own opinion baseless. It's also the same person who is never able to provide conclusive evidence for his claims nor can he ever show why a theory is baseless.

Why not simply discussing the evidence instead of constantly whining about others?

So much mumbo jumbo and deflection.  Dancing around like a circus monkey.  This is a straightforward issue.  You claimed as a fact that Oswald couldn't have come down the stairs from the 6th floor to the lunchroom unnoticed.  If Oswald couldn't have reached the lunchroom from the 6th floor after the assassination via the stairs, that precludes him from being the assassin.  The shots were fired from the 6th floor.  He couldn't have used the elevators since they were still on the upper floors.  Baker and Truly had to go up the stairs because the elevators were on the upper floors.  There is no other option for Oswald to have descended from the 6th floor to the lunchroom other than the stairs or elevator.   Neither of which he could have used if you are correct.  As a result, the only possible implication to be drawn from your claim is that you believe Oswald could not have been the assassin.  That makes you a CTer. 

[Martin Weidmann]

So much mumbo jumbo and deflection.  Dancing around like a circus monkey.  This is a straightforward issue.  You claimed as a fact that Oswald couldn't have come down the stairs from the 6th floor to the lunchroom unnoticed.  If Oswald couldn't have reached the lunchroom from the 6th floor after the assassination via the stairs, that precludes him from being the assassin.  The shots were fired from the 6th floor.  He couldn't have used the elevators since they were still on the upper floors.  Baker and Truly had to go up the stairs because the elevators were on the upper floors.  There is no other option for Oswald to have descended from the 6th floor to the lunchroom other than the stairs or elevator.   Neither of which he could have used if you are correct.  As a result, the only possible implication to be drawn from your claim is that you believe Oswald could not have been the assassin.  That makes you a CTer.

No. It makes me a realist reaching a logical conclusion based on known facts.

But I'll make you a deal.....Forget proving that Oswald was on the 6th floor and even that he fired the shots at Kennedy. Just explain how he would have gone down the stairs (the only option, as you say) without being noticed by anybody and Dorothy Garner in particular. When you do that, I'll gladly accept that Oswald could indeed have been on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting. No CTer would ever do that. So, give it your best shot.... come on then.. prove my hypothesis wrong and convince me!

Now why do I expect another rant about everything except the answer to my question?

[Bill Chapman]

This scenario seems just as likely as anything these ding-dongs have come up with, to date.


Bill Chapman