Poll claims Oswald seen as ......

[Walt Cakebread]

This is comedy gold.  One of my favorite posts on this forum.  Keep in mind Martin is not angry about being exposed as a CTer.  He even says so!  HA HA HA.  I await his next commentary with anticipation.  I bet it doesn't answer how Oswald could have still been the assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs."  A conclusion of innocence.

Quite obviously you believe that being a CT is the lowest form of humanity.... But what  It's  that actually says is...You're an insufferable moron.  If it weren't for people( CT's)  who were smart enough and courageous enough  to  see through the official government's proclamation that the earth was flat, we'd still be afraid to try to cross the ocean.

Clearly Mr "smith" ...you are a gutless moron.

[Jerry Organ]

Quite obviously you believe that being a CT is the lowest form of humanity.... But what  It's  that actually says is...You're an insufferable moron.  If it weren't for people( CT's)  who were smart enough and courageous enough  to  see through the official government's proclamation that the earth was flat, we'd still be afraid to try to cross the ocean.

Clearly Mr "smith" ...you are a gutless moron.

Walt, surely you heard. New rules. Nobody on this Forum is a CT. Including you.

But LNers are stuck being LNers because they can't be "objective" or "think independently".

[Richard Smith]

Quite obviously you believe that being a CT is the lowest form of humanity.... But what  It's  that actually says is...You're an insufferable moron.  If it weren't for people( CT's)  who were smart enough and courageous enough  to  see through the official government's proclamation that the earth was flat, we'd still be afraid to try to cross the ocean.

Clearly Mr "smith" ...you are a gutless moron.

Again, take it up with Martin.  He is the one who refuses to acknowledge that he is a CTer even though he thinks Oswald "didn't come down the stairs."  He must believe there is something wrong with admitting to being a CTer since he has a childish tantrum each time it is pointed out that the only possible implication of his nutty conclusion is that he is a CTer.  I have no problem with being a CTer when there is evidence of a conspiracy.  There was, for example, a conspiracy to assassinate President Lincoln.   

[Martin Weidmann]

Again, take it up with Martin.  He is the one who refuses to acknowledge that he is a CTer even though he thinks Oswald "didn't come down the stairs."  He must believe there is something wrong with admitting to being a CTer since he has a childish tantrum each time it is pointed out that the only possible implication of his nutty conclusion is that he is a CTer.  I have no problem with being a CTer when there is evidence of a conspiracy.  There was, for example, a conspiracy to assassinate President Lincoln.

Here is another question that “Richard” will never answer:

How is the “Oswald didn’t come down the stairs” conclusion a conspiracy theory?

Btw, where is the evidence for your pathetic claims that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he managed to come down the stairs unnoticed within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot?

You are the first LN I know who has managed to demonstrate clearly that there is no evidence whatsoever for Oswald being on the 6th floor when the shots were fired 

[Richard Smith]

Btw, where is the evidence for your pathetic claims that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he managed to come down the stairs unnoticed within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot?

You are the first LN I know who has managed to demonstrate clearly that there is no evidence whatsoever for Oswald being on the 6th floor when the shots were fired 

Again, we have gone through this a million times.  The DPD and WC conducted an extensive investigation following the assassination.  The WC outlined the evidence linking Oswald to this crime.  I have nothing to add to that evidence.  It supports the conclusion that Oswald assassinated JFK from the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30PM on 11.22.63.  That evidence has been available for nearly six decades.  You are aware of that evidence.  So why keep asking me about "my" evidence?  Do you think I have evidence that was unavailable to the WC?  This isn't just my "claim" but that of the official investigation by federal and state law enforcement agencies.  That is the evidence.  What a silly deflection.  We know that if the evidence places Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 and in the 2nd floor lunchroom a few minutes later that he MUST have used the stairs and done so unnoticed because that was the ONLY means for him to have done so.  The best evidence that a thing is possible is that it happened.  Your subjective interpretations of the witness description of events down to the exact second to fit your desired narrative is weak sauce to rebut the WC's evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor.  But if you think this has validity, contact the NY Times to let them know that you have exonerated Oswald with your brilliance. 

You have concluded that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" from the 6th floor following the assassination.  The only possible implication to be drawn from YOUR conclusion is that Oswald was not the assassin because he couldn't have been on the 6th floor when the shots were fired if he "didn't come down the stairs" to the 2nd floor to encounter Baker a few minutes later.  So confirm for us that your position is that Oswald must be innocent and that the documented WC evidence that links him to this crime was a product of conspiracy to frame him.  That should be easy because there is no other implication to be drawn from YOUR own conclusion.  Why struggle so mightily against your own conclusion?  Why do you hold JFK CTers in such low regard as to refuse to admit that you are one while peddling a conclusion that requires a conspiracy?

[Martin Weidmann]

Again, we have gone through this a million times.  The DPD and WC conducted an extensive investigation following the assassination.  The WC outlined the evidence linking Oswald to this crime.  I have nothing to add to that evidence.  It supports the conclusion that Oswald assassinated JFK from the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30PM on 11.22.63.  That evidence has been available for nearly six decades.  You are aware of that evidence.  So why keep asking me about "my" evidence?  Do you think I have evidence that was unavailable to the WC?  This isn't just my "claim" but that of the official investigation by federal and state law enforcement agencies.  That is the evidence.  What a silly deflection.  We know that if the evidence places Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 and in the 2nd floor lunchroom a few minutes later that he MUST have used the stairs and done so unnoticed because that was the ONLY means for him to have done so.  The best evidence that a thing is possible is that it happened.  Your subjective interpretations of the witness description of events down to the exact second to fit your desired narrative is weak sauce to rebut the WC's evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor.  But if you think this has validity, contact the NY Times to let them know that you have exonerated Oswald with your brilliance. 

You have concluded that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" from the 6th floor following the assassination.  The only possible implication to be drawn from YOUR conclusion is that Oswald was not the assassin because he couldn't have been on the 6th floor when the shots were fired if he "didn't come down the stairs" to the 2nd floor to encounter Baker a few minutes later.  So confirm for us that your position is that Oswald must be innocent and that the documented WC evidence that links him to this crime was a product of conspiracy to frame him.  That should be easy because there is no other implication to be drawn from YOUR own conclusion.  Why struggle so mightily against your own conclusion?  Why do you hold JFK CTers in such low regard as to refuse to admit that you are one while peddling a conclusion that requires a conspiracy?

Wow, hang on... YOU claimed that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he came down the stairs unnoticed. You said that the evidence showed that. I asked you for that evidence.

Now you hide behind the WC, but they never provided any evidence that showed that Oswald was on the 6th floor and/or came down the stairs. They just concluded, based on highly dubious assumptions that Oswald killed Kennedy and never presented any evidence for him being on the 6th floor and/or coming down the stairs unnoticed. In fact, they simply ignored all of it; "We say he killed Kennedy, so he must of been on the 6th floor and must have come down the stairs". That was it!

This is exactly what I have been saying all along; your can not support your claims that Oswald was on the 6th floor and/or that he came down the stairs with evidence, because it simply doesn't exist. Will you ever learn that assumptions are not evidence?

The DPD and WC conducted an extensive investigation following the assassination. 

Could you keep a straight face when you wrote this BS?

The WC outlined the evidence linking Oswald to this crime.

Nope. They outlined a whole bunch of selfserving assumptions that were supposed to link highly questionable pieces of evidence together and failed to notice or ignored that those pieces of evidence did not even support their assumptions and conclusions.

I have nothing to add to that evidence.

What evidence? The WC narrative? Well, let's examine it, shall we?

According to some FBI expert, Oswald wrote a Kleins' order form for a rifle in early 1963. We assume he ordered that rifle for himself, despite the fact that the order form has the name Hidell on it. Although there are no shipping documents and/or proof that Oswald received and collected that rifle, we assume that he must have received it, because Waldman said that a handwritten circle on Waldman 7 around the letters "PP" means it was sent. Oswald was photographed holding a rifle and although the experts disagree we nevertheless assume that it was the same rifle that was ordered from Kleins'. Without any credible evidence we also assume that Oswald used this rifle to fire a shot at General Walker. Obviously we ignore Walker's complaint about the bullet now in evidence (the only link to the rifle) not being the bullet the DPD took out of the wall of his home.

We then assume that Oswald took this rifle, he had just used for an attempted murder, on public transport to New Orleans. We "know" this because his wife said he sat on the stairs of the back porch after dark with a rifle. The next thing we assume is that Oswald wrapped that rifle in a blanket and put it in the back of Ruth Paine's car when she picked up Marina. The rifle must have been in the blanket because one of the officers who searched Ruth Paine's house allegedly saw the impression of a rifle in the empty blanket after the rifle had been removed [really?]. Marina told us that in late September she looked in the blanket and saw the wooden stock of a rifle, so we assume that this must have been the same rifle Oswald ordered from Kleins'....

and on and on it goes..... That's the WC case. When highly qualified lawyers as those who worked for the WC produce something as shallow and weak as this, they are either completely incompetent (which I don't believe) or they do so because they know the case is never going to any court, except the court of public opinion and even there they failed to convince the majority of the people.

It supports the conclusion that Oswald assassinated JFK from the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30PM on 11.22.63.

No it doesn't and you can't explain how it does.....That why you have been running from answering my questions and that's why you are now hiding behind "the WC said so, so it must be true".

This isn't just my "claim" but that of the official investigation by federal and state law enforcement agencies.  That is the evidence.

What a pathetic appeal to authority. You do know that's a logical fallacy, don't you? Don't you have a mind of your own? Try using it for once!

We know that if the evidence places Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 and in the 2nd floor lunchroom a few minutes later that he MUST have used the stairs and done so unnoticed because that was the ONLY means for him to have done so.  The best evidence that a thing is possible is that it happened.

There it is again and it is still hilarious. Try to understand this; the evidence does not place Oswald on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and the evidence does not show that Oswald went down the stairs unnoticed. A whole bunch of assumptions not supported by any evidence does. And with enough assumptions you can reach any conclusion about anything or anybody. That's why assumptions are meaningless. But, just in case I am missing something, feel free to point out where I am wrong. 

This is how your silly fairytale scenario goes; "we found a rifle on the 6th floor, which we assume belongs to Oswald and must have still been in his possession on 11/21/63. The mere fact that we found that rifle, which we also assume that Oswald brought into the building justifies the assumption that Oswald was on the 6th floor from where he shot Kennedy with a rifle that we only assume was indeed fired that day.

Do you understand how pathetically superficial this fairytale really is?

Your subjective interpretations of the witness description of events down to the exact second to fit your desired narrative is weak sauce to rebut the WC's evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... Have you actually ever read Chapter 4 of the WC report? Now, if you want to talk about comedy gold, there you have it!

If the WC had conclusive evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor, it should have been possible for you to defend it or at least explain why you think it's conclusive. You haven't done that and you are still hiding behind the fiction of the WC...

I can only wonder why. Could it be that you don't want to defend the WC's so-called evidence simply because you understand just how weak their assumptions really are?

I repeat; You are the first LN I know who has managed to demonstrate clearly that there is no evidence whatsoever for Oswald being on the 6th floor when the shots were fired 

[Richard Smith]

Wow, hang on... YOU claimed that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he came down the stairs unnoticed. You said that the evidence showed that. I asked you for that evidence.

Now you hide behind the WC, but they never provided any evidence that showed that Oswald was on the 6th floor and/or came down the stairs. They just concluded, based on highly dubious assumptions that Oswald killed Kennedy and never presented any evidence for him being on the 6th floor and/or coming down the stairs unnoticed. In fact, they simply ignored all of it; "We say he killed Kennedy, so he must of been on the 6th floor and must have come down the stairs". That was it!

This is exactly what I have been saying all along; your can not support your claims that Oswald was on the 6th floor and/or that he came down the stairs with evidence, because it simply doesn't exist. Will you ever learn that assumptions are not evidence?

The DPD and WC conducted an extensive investigation following the assassination. 

Could you keep a straight face when you wrote this BS?

The WC outlined the evidence linking Oswald to this crime.

Nope. They outlined a whole bunch of selfserving assumptions that were supposed to link highly questionable pieces of evidence together and failed to notice or ignored that those pieces of evidence did not even support their assumptions and conclusions.

I have nothing to add to that evidence.

What evidence? The WC narrative? Well, let's examine it, shall we?

According to some FBI expert, Oswald wrote a Kleins' order form for a rifle in early 1963. We assume he ordered that rifle for himself, despite the fact that the order form has the name Hidell on it. Although there are no shipping documents and/or proof that Oswald received and collected that rifle, we assume that he must have received it, because Waldman said that a handwritten circle on Waldman 7 around the letters "PP" means it was sent. Oswald was photographed holding a rifle and although the experts disagree we nevertheless assume that it was the same rifle that was ordered from Kleins'. Without any credible evidence we also assume that Oswald used this rifle to fire a shot at General Walker. Obviously we ignore Walker's complaint about the bullet now in evidence (the only link to the rifle) not being the bullet the DPD took out of the wall of his home.

We then assume that Oswald took this rifle, he had just used for an attempted murder, on public transport to New Orleans. We "know" this because his wife said he sat on the stairs of the back porch after dark with a rifle. The next thing we assume is that Oswald wrapped that rifle in a blanket and put it in the back of Ruth Paine's car when she picked up Marina. The rifle must have been in the blanket because one of the officers who searched Ruth Paine's house allegedly saw the impression of a rifle in the empty blanket after the rifle had been removed [really?]. Marina told us that in late September she looked in the blanket and saw the wooden stock of a rifle, so we assume that this must have been the same rifle Oswald ordered from Kleins'....

and on and on it goes..... That's the WC case. When highly qualified lawyers as those who worked for the WC produce something as shallow and weak as this, they are either completely incompetent (which I don't believe) or they do so because they know the case is never going to any court, except the court of public opinion and even there they failed to convince the majority of the people.

It supports the conclusion that Oswald assassinated JFK from the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30PM on 11.22.63.

No it doesn't and you can't explain how it does.....That why you have been running from answering my questions and that's why you are now hiding behind "the WC said so, so it must be true".

This isn't just my "claim" but that of the official investigation by federal and state law enforcement agencies.  That is the evidence.

What a pathetic appeal to authority. You do know that's a logical fallacy, don't you? Don't you have a mind of your own? Try using it for once!

We know that if the evidence places Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 and in the 2nd floor lunchroom a few minutes later that he MUST have used the stairs and done so unnoticed because that was the ONLY means for him to have done so.  The best evidence that a thing is possible is that it happened.

There it is again and it is still hilarious. Try to understand this; the evidence does not place Oswald on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and the evidence does not show that Oswald went down the stairs unnoticed. A whole bunch of assumptions not supported by any evidence does. And with enough assumptions you can reach any conclusion about anything or anybody. That's why assumptions are meaningless. But, just in case I am missing something, feel free to point out where I am wrong. 

This is how your silly fairytale scenario goes; "we found a rifle on the 6th floor, which we assume belongs to Oswald and must have still been in his possession on 11/21/63. The mere fact that we found that rifle, which we also assume that Oswald brought into the building justifies the assumption that Oswald was on the 6th floor from where he shot Kennedy with a rifle that we only assume was indeed fired that day.

Do you understand how pathetically superficial this fairytale really is?

Your subjective interpretations of the witness description of events down to the exact second to fit your desired narrative is weak sauce to rebut the WC's evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... Have you actually ever read Chapter 4 of the WC report? Now, if you want to talk about comedy gold, there you have it!

If the WC had conclusive evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor, it should have been possible for you to defend it or at least explain why you think it's conclusive. You haven't done that and you are still hiding behind the fiction of the WC...

I can only wonder why. Could it be that you don't want to defend the WC's so-called evidence simply because you understand just how weak their assumptions really are?

I repeat; You are the first LN I know who has managed to demonstrate clearly that there is no evidence whatsoever for Oswald being on the 6th floor when the shots were fired 

So many words.  I know that you don't accept the WC's evidence.  That is because you have an impossible standard of proof when it comes to evidence of Oswald's guilt.  You didn't ask me to convince you of Oswald's presence on the 6th floor.  An impossible task because you are a CTer who has apparently concluded he is innocent.  You asked what "my" evidence was.  I've noted several times there was an extensive investigation of the case by state and federal authorities and that evidence is widely available.  That evidence convinces me and any reasonable person of Oswald's guilt.  I have not taken a magnifying glass to the TSBD looking for additional evidence like Sherlock Holmes as you appear to stupidly suggest is necessary.  Continual deflections asking for "my" evidence are the kind of thing that a CTer contrarian uses to deflect away from their own conclusions.  You have said that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" after the assassination.  Can you explain to us how Oswald could still be the assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs" or not?  If not, then concede that your position is that Oswald is innocent, and you are a CTer.  Good grief.  Your struggle to avoid accepting your own conclusions is hilarious.  Like a child refusing to acknowledge that there is no Santa Claus.

[Bill Chapman]

Oswald got what he deserved.