David Lifton has died

[Richard Smith]

You and I and many others have gone over and over and over the evidence that links Oswald to the crime more times than I can count.

Nope... If that were the case, I wouldn't be asking for six months. Care to try again?

The rifle, prints, witnesses, bullet casings, absence of a credible alibi, flight from the scene, involvement in the murder of a police officer less than an hour later, resisting arrest, nutty political background, and numerous lies to the police regarding his ownership of a rifle, carrying a long package to work that morning etc.  Each piece of evidence has been discussed with you ad nauseum.  You know that evidence.

Yes, I know this evidence and none of it comes even close to support your claim that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he came down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the shots. Apart from the rifle issue, it's all biased circumstantial BS, speculation and wild assumptions. As far as the rifle goes - and I have asked you this before -, even if Oswald did order and receive that particular rifle in March 1963, how does that even begin to prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired on 11/22/63?

It has been compiled by the WC.  I know your opinion and you know mine about that evidence.

Sure, but our opinions about the WC evidence have nothing to do with what I have been asking up for months now. You claimed Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he came down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot. For both of your claims there is not a shred of evidence in the WC report. So, again, other than just an assumption or even a flawed conclusion on your part, what is your evidence that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he came down the stairs after the last shot?

There is no mystery or ambiguity about the evidence that I or any LNer rely upon to conclude it links Oswald to this crime.

You can't be serious. Nearly 60 years of discussion is a clear sign there is massive mystery and ambiguity about the evidence!

Whenever you make an idiotic claim like there is "credible evidence" to support Lifton's theory and are called on this type of moronic claim you deflect the discussion to a a different topic.

I did no such thing. I merely pointed out your massive hypocrisy. You've been playing this game for six months now. Pot meet kettle! I, on the other, have clearly stated from the beginning that I wasn't going to discuss Lifton's theories with you in a thread that deals with the man's death.

Btw, there is no "idiotic claim". What I said was that Lifton provided more credible evidence for his theories than you have ever presented for your wild and pathetic claims about Oswald being on the 6th floor. That's all I said and then you, as per usual, turned it all into a three ring circus.

I've asked this simple and direct question in response to YOUR claim a dozen times and you refuse to answer.  It's bizarre.  It's YOUR claim.

Join the club. I've been asking for 6 months for the evidence that supports your wild claims about Oswald being on the 6th floor and coming down the stairs and I am still waiting. Now, that's really bizarre!

Amazing.  So many words and none relevant to any matter of substance.  You said Lifton provided "more credible evidence for his theories" than exists to prove Oswald's guilt.  Even if you believe there is zero credible evidence of Oswald's guilt, by claiming that there is "more credible evidence" of Lifton's theory suggests that you must have concluded that it is supported by some "credible evidence."  But you refuse to state what it is.  What a coward.  And you really are claiming that you have not discussed the evidence against Oswald with anyone here?  Like his ownership of a rifle etc.  Delusional.   You are here night and day for years.  Granted most of your posts derail threads to avoid the evidence with deflection, personal commentary and insults but there have been hundreds or thousands of exchanges on the evidence of Oswald's guilt.

[Martin Weidmann]

Amazing.  So many words and none relevant to any matter of substance.  You said Lifton provided "more credible evidence for his theories" than exists to prove Oswald's guilt.  Even if you believe there is zero credible evidence of Oswald's guilt, by claiming that there is "more credible evidence" of Lifton's theory suggests that you must have concluded that it is supported by some "credible evidence."  But you refuse to state what it is.  What a coward.  And you really are claiming that you have not discussed the evidence against Oswald with anyone here?  Like his ownership of a rifle etc.  Delusional.   You are here night and day for years.  Granted most of your posts derail threads to avoid the evidence with deflection, personal commentary and insults but there have been hundreds or thousands of exchanges on the evidence of Oswald's guilt.

So many words and none relevant to any matter of substance.

Huh? Oswald's alleged presence on the 6th floor when the shots were fired is not relevant to any matter of substance? Really?

You said Lifton provided "more credible evidence for his theories" than exists to prove Oswald's guilt.

Stop making up stuff. I never said anything of the kind

And you really are claiming that you have not discussed the evidence against Oswald with anyone here?

No. Learn to read before you make stupid comments like this

You are here night and day for years.

If it were true (which it isn't), you would have to be "here night and day for years" to even know that.
Crappy comments like this are expected from you when you have run out of reasonal and plausible arguments to present.

Granted most of your posts derail threads to avoid the evidence with deflection, personal commentary and insults

Stop looking in the mirror!

but there have been hundreds or thousands of exchanges on the evidence of Oswald's guilt.

You do know where you are, don't you? What else but discussions about the evidence and/or Oswald's guilt do you expect on a JFK assassination forum?

[Richard Smith]

So many words and none relevant to any matter of substance.

Huh? Oswald's alleged presence on the 6th floor when the shots were fired is not relevant to any matter of substance? Really?

You said Lifton provided "more credible evidence for his theories" than exists to prove Oswald's guilt.

Stop making up stuff. I never said anything of the kind

Truly amazing.  A simple question was asked about your claim.  You have spent countless posts going down every rabbit hole.  Here are your exact words again:

"Lifton offered more credible evidence for parts of his theory than you ever will and can for Oswald being on the 6th floor when the shots were fired."

So again, what "credible evidence" supports Lifton's theory? 

[Martin Weidmann]

Truly amazing.  A simple question was asked about your claim.  You have spent countless posts going down every rabbit hole.  Here are your exact words again:

"Lifton offered more credible evidence for parts of his theory than you ever will and can for Oswald being on the 6th floor when the shots were fired."

So again, what "credible evidence" supports Lifton's theory?

You can ask that question 1000 times more and whine and complain as much as you like, my reply is always going to be the same;

I have no intention to enter into any kind of discussion about Lifton's theories, based on your own pathetically biased opinions, in a thread that deals with the man's death.

Only a fool asks the same question over and over again and expects a different reply than the one already given.

Besides, you've already told us that you find Lifton's evidence not credible and you have demonstrated time after time that you are completely clueless about the credibility and evidentiary value of corroborated authentic evidence, so what would be the point in answering your question? It would be a complete waste of time and I am not going to play your usual game!

So, try to get this through your thick skull; my original statement was about you not providing any evidence for your BS claims about Oswald being on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. Lifton, on the other hand, wrote a book containing credible corroborated evidence, at for at least some parts of his theory, which makes my statement true, regardless of you considering his evidence credible or not. 

[Sean Kneringer]

Isn't it far easier to just kill the President and split town instead of setting up Oswald (how could they be sure he wouldn't be in someone's company at 12:30 PM?) and stealing/altering the body?

[John Iacoletti]

Maybe instead of stamping his feet like a petulant child, “Richard” should answer for his own evidentiary claim (that there is evidence proving that Oswald was on the sixth floor with a rifle when the shots were fired and went down the northwest stairs in 75 seconds without being seen or heard by at least 12 people along the way), before making demands of others. Is this the All About What “Richard” wants show?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Isn't it far easier to just kill the President and split town instead of setting up Oswald (how could they be sure he wouldn't be in someone's company at 12:30 PM?) and stealing/altering the body?

They wanted to frame a pro-Castro assassin to justify an invasion of Cuba. Sure, they then investigated the assassination and cleared Cuba/Castro of any role - thereby removing the reason/justification or purpose of the entire conspiracy - but let's not sweat the details. It's conspiracy thinking; it doesn't have to make sense, be logical; it just has to promote a conspiracy.

How about this alternative? Plant the rifle and shells in front of where JFK was located? Frame Oswald as being behind the fence. Then you don't have to change everything.

[Martin Weidmann]

They wanted to frame a pro-Castro assassin to justify an invasion of Cuba. Sure, they then investigated the assassination and cleared Cuba/Castro of any role - thereby removing the reason/justification or purpose of the entire conspiracy - but let's not sweat the details. It's conspiracy thinking; it doesn't have to make sense, be logical; it just has to promote a conspiracy.

How about this alternative? Plant the rifle and shells in front of where JFK was located? Frame Oswald as being behind the fence. Then you don't have to change everything.

They wanted to frame a pro-Castro assassin to justify an invasion of Cuba.

Who are "they" and how in the world would you know what "they" wanted to do?

How about this alternative? Plant the rifle and shells in front of where JFK was located? Frame Oswald as being behind the fence. Then you don't have to change everything.

Some witnesses said they heard shots coming from more than one direction. How do you work that into your "alternative"?