Blonde

[John Iacoletti]

I don't believe they are as obsessed with me as you are.  Why not tell "them" your evidence that leads you to conclude that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs"?  If that is the case, then you have proven Oswald is innocent, and you are a conspiracy theorist as it is the only possible implication to be drawn from YOUR conclusion.

That’s still BS, no matter how many times you repeat it. Find something new to mindlessly parrot.

[Paul J Cummings]

Again I'll ask the question for the last time. Who are these specific people?

[Richard Smith]

he refuses to accept the only possible implication of his OWN conclusion.  That Oswald couldn't have been the 6th floor assassin since those stairs are the only way to have reached the 2nd floor lunchroom in the known timeframe.

I have never refused to accept any of this. It's just another one of your many misrepresentations of the actual facts. Why would I not accept this when the preponderance of the available evidence clearly suggests this is most likely what happened.

What I don't accept is your stupid premise that I must consider Oswald to be innocent because he couldn't have come down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot.

It seems all this is going way over your head or you simply ignore the distinction to keep on misrepresenting what I have actually said.

If Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" from the 6th floor after the assassination as you have concluded, how could he be in the 2nd floor lunchroom for the encounter with Baker and still have been the assassin? 

[Martin Weidmann]

If Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" from the 6th floor after the assassination as you have concluded, how could he be in the 2nd floor lunchroom for the encounter with Baker and still have been the assassin?

And there we have it; the conclusive proof that what I am saying is going way over your head.

[Richard Smith]

And there we have it; the conclusive proof that what I am saying is going way over your head.

Why not just answer the simple question?  It is not a trick.  Again, if you have concluded that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" after the assassination, how could he still have been the assassin?  Do you think there was another way that Oswald could have gotten from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor without being seen?  If not, that rules him out as the assassin.  So explain it to us.  Avoid the temptation to deflect to personal commentary or other issues to avoid answering as you have done for weeks. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Why not just answer the simple question?  It is not a trick.  Again, if you have concluded that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" after the assassination, how could he still have been the assassin?  Do you think there was another way that Oswald could have gotten from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor without being seen?  If not, that rules him out as the assassin.  So explain it to us.  Avoid the temptation to deflect to personal commentary or other issues to avoid answering as you have done for weeks.

Why not just answer the simple question?

Says the guy who refuses to answer any questions ... 

I've been answering your ignorant questions for weeks now, when at the same time you have refused or were unable to answer my questions.

Where did I say that Oswald could still have been the assassin if he didn't come down the stairs? You are still not getting any of this, aren't you?

Here's a clue;

Try to understand the stupidity of this remark;

Why not tell "them" your evidence that leads you to conclude that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs"?  If that is the case, then you have proven Oswald is innocent,

and you might figure it out.

[Richard Smith]

Why not just answer the simple question?

Says the guy who refuses to answer any questions ... 

I've been answering your ignorant questions for weeks now, when at the same time you have refused or were unable to answer my questions.

Where did I say that Oswald could still have been the assassin if he didn't come down the stairs? You are still not getting any of this, aren't you?

Here's a clue;

Try to understand the stupidity of this remark;

and you might figure it out.

What are you babbling about?  This is real simple.  I've tried to dumb this down to the point that a child could answer.   How could Oswald be the assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs" after the assassination as you conclude?  I didn't suggest that you have said that Oswald could still have been the assassin.  That was my question.  If Oswald "didn't come the stairs" then you must believe he is innocent of this crime and he was framed as part of a conspiracy.  Is that your position or not?

[Martin Weidmann]

What are you babbling about?  This is real simple.  I've tried to dumb this down to the point that a child could answer.   How could Oswald be the assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs" after the assassination as you conclude?  I didn't suggest that you have said that Oswald could still have been the assassin.  That was my question. If Oswald "didn't come the stairs" then you must believe he is innocent of this crime and he was framed as part of a conspiracy.  Is that your position or not?

What are you babbling about?

Still clueless, I see.... You might want to tone down the arrogance when you display so much ignorance.

This is real simple.

Yes it is, so why are you not getting any of it?

I've tried to dumb this down to the point that a child could answer. How could Oswald be the assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs" after the assassination as you conclude?  I didn't suggest that you have said that Oswald could still have been the assassin.  That was my question.

And it's a pretty dumb question, which I have already answered a number of times in a way a child would understand it.

If Oswald "didn't come the stairs" then you must believe he is innocent of this crime and he was framed as part of a conspiracy.

More ignorance on display. Why must I believe that?

I have to say that it is great fun to watch you guess and making a complete fool of yourself time after time. It is very telling about just how limited you capacity to examine and understand obvious facts really is.