Poll claims Oswald seen as ......

[Martin Weidmann]

And then there's the "Grassy Knoll Assassin" who must be there because Sam Holland saw a "puff of smoke".

Who said that?

[Richard Smith]

It seems Richard still hasn't been able to come up with a plausible scenario for how Oswald could have gone down the stairs, within 75 seconds after the last shot, without being seen.

No wonder the WC basically ignored this problem and desperately tried to discredit Victoria Adams with a physically impossible narrative.

You made a specific claim that Oswald could not have come down the stairs unnoticed after the assassination.  Your claim excludes Oswald as the assassin as there was no other apparent way he could have made it to the lunchroom from the 6th floor other than the stairs.  You, however, have run away from the only implication of your own claim like a scared child.  It's very amusing.  Your disagreement is not with me but yourself.  You keep trying to deflect this to some other topic rather than accept your own analysis and confirm that you are a CTer.  I've explained my position to you on the stairs.  The evidence indicates that Oswald was in the SN at 12:30 (you know that evidence and just want to deflect to yet another meaningless debate on the topic) and the evidence confirms that Oswald was in the lunchroom shortly later for the encounter with Baker.  The exact timing of the movements of Oswald and others you have cited in your amusing analysis are simply not knowable to the degree of certainty that you insist is accurate to preclude Oswald from having used the stairs.  There is insufficient detailed information to reach that conclusion.  Thus, you cannot preclude Oswald from having simply gone down the stairs and the evidence suggest that is exactly what he must have done.  But again, if you are convinced of your own analysis explain to us how you are not a CTer?  If Oswald did not use the stairs, he obviously was not the assassin as there was no other apparent way for him to have reached the 2nd floor.  That is the only implication that can be drawn from your assessment of the evidence.  So why not just say that instead of dancing endlessly like a circus monkey to avoid accepting your own conclusion - no matter how amusing that might be? 

[John Iacoletti]

"Richard" has this exactly backwards.  He cannot demonstrate with evidence that Oswald was on the sixth floor at 12:30 -- he just claims that "evidence" indicates that he was without specifying what that evidence is (other than his usual false and unsubstantiated drivel), so he tries to turn it around on Martin in order to deflect from his own inability to justify his position.

[Martin Weidmann]

You made a specific claim that Oswald could not have come down the stairs unnoticed after the assassination.  Your claim excludes Oswald as the assassin as there was no other apparent way he could have made it to the lunchroom from the 6th floor other than the stairs.  You, however, have run away from the only implication of your own claim like a scared child.  It's very amusing.  Your disagreement is not with me but yourself.  You keep trying to deflect this to some other topic rather than accept your own analysis and confirm that you are a CTer.  I've explained my position to you on the stairs.  The evidence indicates that Oswald was in the SN at 12:30 (you know that evidence and just want to deflect to yet another meaningless debate on the topic) and the evidence confirms that Oswald was in the lunchroom shortly later for the encounter with Baker.  The exact timing of the movements of Oswald and others you have cited in your amusing analysis are simply not knowable to the degree of certainty that you insist is accurate to preclude Oswald from having used the stairs.  There is insufficient detailed information to reach that conclusion.  Thus, you cannot preclude Oswald from having simply gone down the stairs and the evidence suggest that is exactly what he must have done.  But again, if you are convinced of your own analysis explain to us how you are not a CTer?  If Oswald did not use the stairs, he obviously was not the assassin as there was no other apparent way for him to have reached the 2nd floor.  That is the only implication that can be drawn from your assessment of the evidence.  So why not just say that instead of dancing endlessly like a circus monkey to avoid accepting your own conclusion - no matter how amusing that might be?

You made a specific claim that Oswald could not have come down the stairs unnoticed after the assassination.  Your claim excludes Oswald as the assassin as there was no other apparent way he could have made it to the lunchroom from the 6th floor other than the stairs.

Your desperate and pathetic attempt to try to turn this thing around and make it about me is fooling nobody. It is of no significance that I don't see how Oswald could have come down the stairs without being noticed and what the implications of that are. What is significant is that you claim Oswald was in fact on the 6th floor and did manage to come down the stairs unnoticed. So it is up to you to show that he was indeed on the 6th floor and did come down the stairs and so far you have failed miserably in providing even a shred of evidence for either.

I've explained my position to you on the stairs.

No you haven't. All you've done so far is a song and dance act and ignore the basic facts of the matter.

The evidence indicates that Oswald was in the SN at 12:30

No it doesn't. You can repeat this bogus claim as often as you want but it will never become true. There is no such evidence!

the evidence confirms that Oswald was in the lunchroom shortly later for the encounter with Baker.

Yes it does, with "shorty later" being roughly 75 seconds after the last shot. So, how did he get there if he was indeed on the 6th floor at the moment of the last shot?

The exact timing of the movements of Oswald and others you have cited in your amusing analysis are simply not knowable to the degree of certainty that you insist is accurate to preclude Oswald from having used the stairs. There is insufficient detailed information to reach that conclusion.   

BS. We're not talking about minutes here. All the events must, by implcation, have taken place between the last shot and the 2nd floor lunchroom encounter. Both events are roughly 75 seconds apart. You just want to keep the timeline as vague as possible to keep open a possibility for Oswald to have come down the stairs. It's a clear sign of desperation.

Thus, you cannot preclude Oswald from having simply gone down the stairs and the evidence suggest that is exactly what he must have done.

More twisted "logic"... Even if it can not be 100% precluded that Oswald could have gone down the stairs, that still doesn't mean that he did. I don't care about your flawed opinion that this is what "he must have down" because it is predominantly based on your self-serving assumption that Oswald was on the 6th floor, for which you can not present even a shred of conclusive evidence. You are simply piling up one assumption on the other.

But again, if you are convinced of your own analysis explain to us how you are not a CTer?

You really need to seek help for this obsession of yours. It's getting out of hand. It has already been explained to you, but the simplified answer is that I don't give a damn if there was a conspiracy or not and I most certainly don't have a conspiracy theory. All I am interested in is if the case against Oswald holds water or not. I can't help it if you don't understand something so basic.

If Oswald did not use the stairs, he obviously was not the assassin as there was no other apparent way for him to have reached the 2nd floor.

Wow. You figured that out all by yourself? Well done.... Having said that, your really should provide evidence (not your assumptions or speculations) that Oswald did in fact come down the stairs and managed to do so unnoticed.

[Martin Weidmann]

"Richard" has this exactly backwards.  He cannot demonstrate with evidence that Oswald was on the sixth floor at 12:30 -- he just claims that "evidence" indicates that he was without specifying what that evidence is (other than his usual false and unsubstantiated drivel), so he tries to turn it around on Martin in order to deflect from his own inability to justify his position.

What else is new?

It's the same old .... every time. No matter if you discuss the paper bag, the "Oswald's rifle", Oswald on the 6th floor or Oswald coming down the stairs, Richard is all talk and no substance. Just opinions based on assumptions and the classic "it's true because I say so" crap.

In fact, it is nearly impossible that Richard does not know and understand just how weak the case against Oswald actually is. Why else would he be constantly complaining about a so-called impossible standard of proof, call people who do not agree with him contrarians simply because they scrutinize the evidence more closely than he ever wil and try to deliberately muddy the water ? That's not the behavior of somebody who has confidence in the evidence and his own arguments.

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.

[Richard Smith]

What else is new?

It's the same old .... every time. No matter if you discuss the paper bag, the "Oswald's rifle", Oswald on the 6th floor or Oswald coming down the stairs, Richard is all talk and no substance. Just opinions based on assumptions and the classic "it's true because I say so" crap.

In fact, it is nearly impossible that Richard does not know and understand just how weak the case against Oswald actually is. Why else would he be constantly complaining about a so-called impossible standard of proof, call people who do not agree with him contrarians simply because they scrutinize the evidence more closely than he ever wil and try to delibamuddy the water ? That's not the behavior of somebody who has confidence in the evidence and his own arguments.

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.

More deflection and personal commentary.  The evidence that links Oswald to the crime is known to you and me.  That has been beaten to death.  You just want to go round and round and round about that again.  Why?  The fact remains that you claimed Oswald could not have gone down the stairs unnoticed.   That is your conclusion.  Those stairs are the only way that Oswald could have come down from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor lunchroom.  Thus, the only implication to be drawn from YOUR conclusion is that Oswald was not the assassin.  Why you struggle so mightily against accepting YOUR own conclusion is hilarious.  Why would someone else need to debunk YOUR conclusion when you yourself won't acknowledge it?  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?  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.  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.  And then to suggest that this silly claim must be rebutted by time machine type evidence is a classic contrarian mindset. 

[Martin Weidmann]

More deflection and personal commentary.  The evidence that links Oswald to the crime is known to you and me.  That has been beaten to death.  You just want to go round and round and round about that again.  Why?  The fact remains that you claimed Oswald could not have gone down the stairs unnoticed.   That is your conclusion.  Those stairs are the only way that Oswald could have come down from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor lunchroom.  Thus, the only implication to be drawn from YOUR conclusion is that Oswald was not the assassin.  Why you struggle so mightily against accepting YOUR own conclusion is hilarious.  Why would someone else need to debunk YOUR conclusion when you yourself won't acknowledge it?  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?  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.  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.  And then to suggest that this silly claim must be rebutted by time machine type evidence is a classic contrarian mindset.

And here he is, proving 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.

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.

[Bill Chapman]

The First 48: Mack et al used stopwatches
to nail that one. A few seconds left over to
pause here & here if one had to.


Bill Chapman