Poll claims Oswald seen as ......

[Martin Weidmann]

So you leave open the possibility that Oswald DID come down the stairs unnoticed when you make statements like Oswald "DIDN'T come down the stairs"?  That is truly Alice-in-Wonderland stuff.   When you make an affirmative statement like Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" that is a conclusion not an opinion as you stupidly suggest in your desire to avoid defending your own conclusions.  A conclusion can be wrong but that doesn't make it a subjective opinion.  You are just going round and round in contrarian circles.  You make affirmative statements based on your analysis of the evidence then dance like a circus monkey to avoid confirming that you accept the implications of your own conclusions.

So you leave open the possibility that Oswald DID come down the stairs unnoticed when you make statements like Oswald "DIDN'T come down the stairs"?  That is truly Alice-in-Wonderland stuff.

Yes it is and it all comes from your confused mind. I never said anything of the kind. You really need to stop misrepresenting my words. Why are you struggling so much to understand this straight forward stuff?

Could it be you have a reading comprehension problem? This is an extract of my previous post;

Are you now changing this view and conceding that Oswald might have come down the stairs unnoticed?

Why would I do that? I have no reason to change my opinion as long as you haven't provided the evidence I asked for.

Btw why are you asking me if I have changed my opinion, when you earlier claimed that my point of view wasn't an opinion? Will you ever start making sense?

It seems you're all over the place... 

When you make an affirmative statement like Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" that is a conclusion not an opinion as you stupidly suggest in your desire to avoid defending your own conclusions.

Semantics and utter nonsense.

You make affirmative statements based on your analysis of the evidence then dance like a circus monkey to avoid confirming that you accept the implications of your own conclusions.

Looking in the mirror again?

Will we ever get the evidence from you that substantiates your claims that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he came down the stairs unnoticed after that. You've been doing a song and dance act for more than two months now.

And please try at some point to get out of your alternate reality and back into the real word. Or alternatively, feel free to write another stupid post.

[John Iacoletti]

A conclusion can be wrong but that doesn't make it a subjective opinion.

Of course a conclusion is a subjective opinion.  No wonder your arguments are so nonsensical.

[Richard Smith]

So you leave open the possibility that Oswald DID come down the stairs unnoticed when you make statements like Oswald "DIDN'T come down the stairs"?  That is truly Alice-in-Wonderland stuff.

Yes it is and it all comes from your confused mind. I never said anything of the kind. You really need to stop misrepresenting my words. Why are you struggling so much to understand this straight forward stuff?

"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 in between 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."


Above are your exact words.  You stated an affirmative conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs."  You didn't say that one possible reason Garner didn't see him was that he didn't come down the stairs or even that this is the most likely reason.  You said without any qualification that the reason Garner did not see him is because "he didn't come down the stairs. " That is a textbook definition of a conclusion.  You have made a decision about the matter rather than merely expressing a belief.  But if you want us to accept your dishonest and incorrect revisionist interpretation of this statement as merely your own opinion leaving open the possibility that Oswald could have come down the stairs unnoticed, that is fine with me since that is exactly what happened.  An added bonus here is that the contrarian brothers apparently don't entertain the possibility of anyone, including themselves, of ever reaching a conclusion.  Everything is merely an assumption or opinion.  No fact can ever be proven in their contrarian fantasy world. 

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Why even have an investigation? Of any event? If the possibility is that the conclusion is wrong - since the evidence for that conclusion may be false - then why investigate...well, anything?

They say they are here to discuss the evidence. But they also say the evidence may be corrupt (in fact, they sometimes actually say it is corrupt or tainted either explicitly or in so many words). So what's the use of discussing this event? Or any event? The information/evidence can be inauthentic or false. So it's useless to do so.

Might as well empty our libraries since those history books might be wrong (they say this about Caro's works on LBJ; he might be wrong and LBJ may have been the mastermind behind the assassination). Why even read history? Why read...well anything? It could all be false after all.

This is a form of nihilism, of anti-intellectualism. All in the service of Lee Oswald? Because none of this nihilism, this absurd standard, is used against the conspiracists and their claims.

[Martin Weidmann]

"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 in between 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."

Above are your exact words.  You stated an affirmative conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs."  You didn't say that one possible reason Garner didn't see him was that he didn't come down the stairs or even that this is the most likely reason.  You said without any qualification that the reason Garner did not see him is because "he didn't come down the stairs. " That is a textbook definition of a conclusion.  You have made a decision about the matter rather than merely expressing a belief.  But if you want us to accept your dishonest and incorrect revisionist interpretation of this statement as merely your own opinion leaving open the possibility that Oswald could have come down the stairs unnoticed, that is fine with me since that is exactly what happened.  An added bonus here is that the contrarian brothers apparently don't entertain the possibility of anyone, including themselves, of ever reaching a conclusion.  Everything is merely an assumption or opinion.  No fact can ever be proven in their contrarian fantasy world.

Above are your exact words.  You stated an affirmative conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs."

Yes that's my opinion after looking at all the available evidence, known to me, which clearly points towards only one possible conclusion, which is that Oswald could not and thus did not come down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot.

Did I miss something? It's always possible, but I seriously doubt it, because although you claim that Oswald did come down the stairs unnoticed, you have been fighting tooth and nail for more than two months now to present the evidence for that claim.

leaving open the possibility that Oswald could have come down the stairs unnoticed, that is fine with me since that is exactly what happened.

And there is the claim again that I have been asking you for months now to provide evidence for. Are we going to get the evidence this time that shows that Oswald did come down the stairs unnoticed?

An added bonus here is that the contrarian brothers apparently don't entertain the possibility of anyone, including themselves, of ever reaching a conclusion.  Everything is merely an assumption or opinion.

That's just another stupid comment. Looking at the available evidence and concluding that Oswald didn't come down the stairs is a opinion or conclusion. Claiming that Oswald did come down the stairs based on no evidence at all is an assumption. Why am I not surprised that you don't understand the difference between the two?

No fact can ever be proven in their contrarian fantasy world

To prove a fact you need to present conclusive evidence. So, where is it? Why don't you just show it and be done with it. Here's your chance to show that John and I have the wrong opinion. Go on then.....

[Martin Weidmann]

Why even have an investigation? Of any event? If the possibility is that the conclusion is wrong - the evidence for that conclusion may be false - then why investigate...well, anything?

They say they are here to discuss the evidence. But they also say the evidence may be corrupt (in fact, they actually do in so many words). So what's the use of discussing this event? Or any event? The information/evidence can be inauthentic or false. So it's useless to do so.

Might as well empty our libraries since those history books might be wrong (they say this about Caro's works on LBJ; he might be wrong and LBJ was the mastermind behind the assassination). Why even read history? Why read...well anything? It could all be false after all.

This is a form of nihilism, of anti-intellectualism. All in the service of Lee Oswald?

If the possibility is that the conclusion is wrong - the evidence for that conclusion may be false -

History shows us time after time that conclusions were wrong and that evidence can be and was tampered with.

One example is the Dreyfus affair in France. Another is the Nazi myth of the Reichstag fire. And while you are at it, have a look at how wrong the history books were for hundreds of years about the Donation of Constantine. Closer to home, just look at the number of unsafe and wrongful convictions that are overturned many years after the fact.

Perhaps you should consider the saying; "History is written by the victors". Rings a bell, perhaps?

then why investigate...well, anything?

So, just because investigations don't always get it right, we should do away with all investigations? Really? Are you really this naive?

They say they are here to discuss the evidence. But they also say the evidence may be corrupt (in fact, they actually do in so many words). So what's the use of discussing this event?

To find out if the evidence was indeed corrupt or not, perhaps? But since you raised the point, I don't recall having seen you ever discussing the evidence or the case itself, so what exactly are you here for? Just to complain, time after time, about all those nasty people who don't share your die hard belief in a massive fairytale, perhaps?

Might as well empty our libraries since those history books might be wrong (they say this about Caro's works on LBJ; he might be wrong and LBJ was the mastermind behind the assassination). Why even read history? Why read...well anything? It could all be false after all.

Oh the dramatics.....

This is a form of nihilism, of anti-intellectualism.

So, let see if I understand this correctly; it's anti-intellectualism to read a history book that might be wrong? Really?

Were you born this stupid and narrowminded or did it come to you as you grew up?

[John Iacoletti]

But if you want us to accept your dishonest and incorrect revisionist interpretation of this statement as merely your own opinion leaving open the possibility that Oswald could have come down the stairs unnoticed, that is fine with me since that is exactly what happened.

LOL.

An added bonus here is that the contrarian brothers apparently don't entertain the possibility of anyone, including themselves, of ever reaching a conclusion.  Everything is merely an assumption or opinion.  No fact can ever be proven in their contrarian fantasy world.

Bull, Strawman "Smith".  There's nothing magical about a "conclusion" that makes it any more likely to be true than any other opinion.  You're making a distinction that doesn't exist.

[Peter Goth]

I have been watching this over the past several weeks and it is comical. Richard, you've got to be putting us on.
You've got to be--nobody can be that dim. You claim Lee Oswald was on the sixth floor at the time of the shots and
he ran down those stairs roughly 75 sec after the last shot and nobody heard him. Nobody heard him. That part's right.

Then, when Martin questions you to show proof of your claim, you dance. Why can't you answer that question. It should be very simple.
But every part of this case is completely f'-d up, that is not demonstrated by Conspiracy Theorists but by disputing "facts" throughout this case
It is the murder of a President, yet, there is not one single piece of solid absolute proof that Lee Oswald shot JFK.
And it is incredible that so many things could be so wrong with a case of such magnitude that had to be perfect in every way.
It is completely far from it. It is a disgrace. And the HSCA Investigation made it no better, in some ways made it worse.

Nutters always say there's no one single piece of evidence, it is the totality of evidence that finds him guilty without a doubt.
You might think that if all you read was the 900 page Summary Report, But you would be fooled by the many contradictions when compared to the 26 volumes.
That is incredible after almost 60 years. Why is this not easy? - It's not a cobbled CT industry, critics could care less about conspiracy theories.

Besides, these matters of discrepancy have been around since 1964. You might say the Mauser has been resolved years ago. It wasn't even that. It was a 7.65 issue.
Can two different officers, from different locations, knew the shells were 6.5mm, go back and swear to 7.65 five times over three days. Why is that not easily resolved?
Weitzman says on the stand, "I must have been mistaken", and that's all you need to hear. When did he realize this? When did they ever show him CE 139?
It's not in the record. It's not that much to ask, but when considering all the other things that are wrong with the case, it becomes essential.

Do you think CTs make up stories?  - well maybe they do, but the critic doesn't. He doesn't have to. I don't understand why you don't get that.
But then, you must know already that you can't defend the Report, and so you play the "straw man" and attempt to project Martin as doing the same thing you do every day.
Dodge ball. Just answer the question. What is the proof that Oswald was on the 6th floor at the time of the shots? Brennan? - perhaps, if you cherry pick while he embellishes.

I find it fascinating that so many people from so many walks of life are mistaken about the same thing. Doctors, medical professionals, trained police, and detectives.
All wrong about the same thing. Statements made to the FBI that directly contradict the narrative. Are these people lying? - Can you lie to the FBI?
Or the witness that made some statement against the official conclusion and is suddenly hounded by the FBI, and not to bring new questions or gather new information.
Arnold Roland is a prime example - they went after his school grades and hear-say to discredit him, and hounded him repeatedly. What did he see in the window?

Then, what about when a couple of people saw the same thing from different parts of the plaza. Dark skin, light brown clothing, or even several men.
Why wouldn't they call the prisoners that saw it all from across the street at the 6th floor level. In June '64, one of Jack Ruby's attorneys, Stanly Kaufman, made a suggestion
to Commission Assistant Counsel, Leon Herbert, that the prisoners, "...had a good view of what took place..." "it might be helpful to the Commission to know that there were people
in jail who saw the actual killing." June 1964, how could they not call them? This is not conspiracy theory, yet it exists throughout this case.

And so Richard, you are smarter then that, and we know it. You should be able to bowl Martin over with facts and proof. Why can't you? - Does he have any reason not to believe you?
Then you turn criticism of your claim into Martin's conspiracy theory, that nobody heard him on the stairs and therefore Lee could not be the assassin. I think I read that right.
But that's an obvious act, because all you have to do is show the proof of your claim and it's game over for Martin - That should have been done weeks ago.

Have you ever considered that failure to be the actual proof of a conspiracy in this case?