Poll claims Oswald seen as a-hole

[Walt Cakebread]

Exactly right.  The only person who would object to the "nitpicking" of evidence is somebody with lousy evidence and an agenda.

Yes, only a person who knows in his heart that he's wrong, but lacks the guts to face the truth, would object to someone picking through the "evidence" that was presented to us by LBJ's Special Select Blue Ribbon Committee.

A person who objects to someone pointing out a major flaw in the "evidence" and then cries when he's confronted with that flawed evidence is simply dishonest and coward , who doesn't understand the wisdom in "to thyself be true" .       

[Richard Smith]

So, you can't explain how Oswald could have gone down the stairs unnoticed nor can you show the evidence you now claim there is for him managing to do so. Got it!

As to this CT crap you keep on spouting. It's a waste of time. Nobody cares and I certainly don't care if you think I am a CT or not. It's just something you want to use to deflect the conversation away from the simple fact that you haven't got a shred of evidence for any of many questionable claims you have made and are still making.

You want us to believe that Oswald came down the stairs unnoticed, but when asked to explain how he could have done that, you become vague and hide, as the coward you are, behind unreliable human recollections. The bottom line is simple; you simply can not explain how Oswald could have managed to get down the stairs without being noticed and your claim there is evidence that proves it is simply a lie.

All you have is a rifle (which you think belongs to Oswald) and three shells. Everything else is a product of your imagination. You can not produce proof for Oswald being on the 6th floor at 12:30, for him firing the shots and for him coming down the stairs unnoticed, simply because it doesn't exist. One doesn't have to be a CT to understand this. Just having a functional brain and a sense for realism will do.

Why not answer the simple question posed and spare us the endless commentary?  You have falsely claimed as a fact that Oswald could not use the stairs to reach the lunchroom unnoticed from the 6th floor.  As that is the only apparent way for Oswald to have reached the lunchroom from the 6th floor, how does your conclusion not preclude Oswald from being the assassin?  Yet you refuse, for some inexplicable reason, to accept the implications of your own conclusion by confirming that it is your position that Oswald was innocent and framed as part of a conspiracy. 

So explain to us how you leave open any possibility of Oswald being on the 6th floor when he couldn't use the stairs or elevator to descend to the lunchroom where he was encountered by Baker.  That is impossible.  The only inference that can be made from your conclusion is that Oswald was not on the 6th floor.  Thus, he could not be the assassin, and someone framed him for this crime.  There is no way to reconcile your conclusion that Oswald couldn't use the stairs to descend to the lunchroom to account for his presence there after the assassination with Oswald still being the potential assassin on the 6th floor.  Rather, this highlights your Inspector Clouseau-like approach to this case.

[John Iacoletti]

Why not answer the simple question posed and spare us the endless commentary?  You have falsely claimed as a fact that Oswald could not use the stairs to reach the lunchroom unnoticed from the 6th floor.

Seeing "Richard" whining about falsely claiming things as facts has got the be the funniest thing I've seen in a long long time.

[John Iacoletti]

When people don't have very good evidence for their opinions, all they can do is complain about other people's "standard of proof".

[Martin Weidmann]

Why not answer the simple question posed and spare us the endless commentary?  You have falsely claimed as a fact that Oswald could not use the stairs to reach the lunchroom unnoticed from the 6th floor.  As that is the only apparent way for Oswald to have reached the lunchroom from the 6th floor, how does your conclusion not preclude Oswald from being the assassin?  Yet you refuse, for some inexplicable reason, to accept the implications of your own conclusion by confirming that it is your position that Oswald was innocent and framed as part of a conspiracy. 

So explain to us how you leave open any possibility of Oswald being on the 6th floor when he couldn't use the stairs or elevator to descend to the lunchroom where he was encountered by Baker.  That is impossible.  The only inference that can be made from your conclusion is that Oswald was not on the 6th floor.  Thus, he could not be the assassin, and someone framed him for this crime.  There is no way to reconcile your conclusion that Oswald couldn't use the stairs to descend to the lunchroom to account for his presence there after the assassination with Oswald still being the potential assassin on the 6th floor.  Rather, this highlights your Inspector Clouseau-like approach to this case.

You have falsely claimed as a fact that Oswald could not use the stairs to reach the lunchroom unnoticed from the 6th floor.

There's nothing false about it, nor have I ever claimed any of it as a fact. I have given you countless opportunities to prove that it is false and you have completely failed to do so. That speaks for itself.

[Walt Cakebread]

What major event, without a complete audio and visual record, can't be undermined with cheap innuendo and an impossible standard of proof? It's like there was no moon landing because there wasn't an audience of witnesses already on the moon to witness it. Or somebody else wrote the Shakespeare works.

It is a fact that Lee Oswald was in the 1st Floor lunchroom at 12:27.  Therefore, it's highly unlikely ( Impossible) that he could have been on the sixth floor and shooting that carcano out of the window.   

I'm sorry that this fact renders your theories impossible.....   

[Martin Weidmann]

Could you cite where anyone said they went by the domino room at 12:27? Jarman, I think, said something like "It was 12:25 or 12:28". Is that your source?

The people recording Oswald's claims said he was in the domino room when either two man walked through, or the two men sat down and had lunch there. Jarman and Norman, and I believe Oswald would have known this, would have to go through the domino room to get to where they routinely stored their lunches. Neither men saw Oswald while eating their lunch, so likely Oswald had no idea that the two men had already eaten.

When Jarman and Norman showed up under Oswald's open window on the sixth floor, Oswald wrongly assumed they had just come from the domino room having just gotten and eaten their lunches. Just another lie among the dozens of lies Oswald told officials.

The people recording Oswald's claims said

That's the most important part. Those people were not familiar with the lay out of the TSBD and may very well have misinterpreted or misremembered what Oswald actually said.

When Jarman and Norman showed up under Oswald's open window on the sixth floor, Oswald wrongly assumed they had just come from the domino room having just gotten and eaten their lunches. Just another lie among the dozens of lies Oswald told officials.

Cool story and a nice bit of speculation for which there isn't a shred of evidence.