Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory

[John Iacoletti]

From this account it seems that if someone wanted to be quiet on the stairs/steps and not be heard he could pull it off.

In 75 seconds after the first shot?

[Charles Collins]

In 75 seconds after the first shot?

Snakes don’t have to go slowly in order to be quiet.

True story: Quite a few years ago, I was walking on some nature trails and heard a woman scream at the top of her lungs on the trail ahead of me, but out of sight,  and a dog start barking. Very soon I saw a six-foot long king snake on the trail headed right towards me at a high rate of speed. It took up the entire width of the trail with it’s S-curve motions. I yelled “good grief” and the snake apparently sensed my presence and veered off the trail before it got to me. Otherwise, I don’t know if I would have gotten out of it’s way in time to avoid it. That is how fast it was traveling, (but making relatively little noise). Oh, and the woman and her dog turned around and went back the way they came. That’s how much the the large snake scared her…

[Richard Smith]

Of course, if someone had seen or "heard" Oswald on the stairs, the contrarians would be noting that he "worked" there and lots of employees used the stairs etc.  So it doesn't mean he assassinated the president. Just like his prints being on the SN boxes.  The circus just goes on and on.  It's actually entertaining.  I particularly like the part where they won't accept the implications of their own claims.  Obviously, if Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" as they suggest, then he wasn't the 6th floor assassin.  And the evidence planted on that floor and elsewhere linking him to the crime was to frame him and cover up the identity of the real assassin.  What's known as a "conspiracy."  And yet these contrarians go into all manner of hysterics if it is suggested that they are CTers if they accept the implications of their own theories.  The deflections come fast down the rabbit hole. 

[John Iacoletti]

Another award winning brilliant “Richard” argument: if there was actual evidence of Oswald going down the stairs then I fantasize that you wouldn’t believe it, therefore you should just believe it with no evidence whatsoever.

And prints on “SN boxes” proves murder, how, exactly?

[Bill Brown]

Another award winning brilliant “Richard” argument: if there was actual evidence of Oswald going down the stairs then I fantasize that you wouldn’t believe it, therefore you should just believe it with no evidence whatsoever.

And prints on “SN boxes” proves murder, how, exactly?

Serious question... What would you consider proof of someone's guilt in a murder?  What kind of evidence would it take for you to consider someone guilty?

[Martin Weidmann]

Serious question... What would you consider proof of someone's guilt in a murder?  What kind of evidence would it take for you to consider someone guilty?

As serious questions are being asked, let me ask you one;

Even if we assume that the MC rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD belonged to Oswald, how does the presence of that rifle prove that Oswald himself was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired?

[Richard Smith]

As serious questions are being asked, let me ask you one;

Even if we assume that the MC rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD belonged to Oswald, how does the presence of that rifle prove that Oswald himself was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired?

You can't be serious with this nonsense.  Who would have access to Oswald's rifle and bring it to his place of employment other than Oswald?  Oswald was asked about the rifle, and he lied to the authorities.  He told them he didn't own any rifle.  He didn't explain how it could have been in the possession of any other person when given a chance.  In fact, he denies ownership of it to distance himself from this rifle as a guilty person would do.  What are you suggesting could have happened here for Oswald's rifle to be on the 6th floor?  You have no evidence whatsoever to link this rifle to any person other than Oswald.  He was given a chance to explain and lied about it.  He also had no credible alibi.  The presence of the murder weapon left at the scene of the crime is highly incriminatory absent some alternative explanation for its presence.  There is none in this case.  Some alternative possibility (which you can't even articulate) dreamed up to suit your desired narrative does not rebut the obvious conclusion from the evidence.  Imagine if every criminal could suggest doubt by such means?

[Martin Weidmann]

You can't be serious with this nonsense.  Who would have access to Oswald's rifle and bring it to his place of employment other than Oswald?  Oswald was asked about the rifle, and he lied to the authorities.  He told them he didn't own any rifle.  He didn't explain how it could have been in the possession of any other person when given a chance.  In fact, he denies ownership of it to distance himself from this rifle as a guilty person would do.  What are you suggesting could have happened here for Oswald's rifle to be on the 6th floor?  You have no evidence whatsoever to link this rifle to any person other than Oswald.  He was given a chance to explain and lied about it.  He also had no credible alibi.  The presence of the murder weapon left at the scene of the crime is highly incriminatory absent some alternative explanation for its presence.  There is none in this case.  Some alternative possibility (which you can't even articulate) dreamed up to suit your desired narrative does not rebut the obvious conclusion from the evidence.  Imagine if every criminal could suggest doubt by such means?

Oh look at the little puppy following me around..... 

When you have nothing of significance or substance to offer, please don't just go off on another "what about" rant that goes nowhere, as per usual.

The presence of the murder weapon left at the scene of the crime is highly incriminatory absent some alternative explanation for its presence.  There is none in this case.

Utter BS. They never looked at the possibility of an alternative explanation, so there isn't one. Did it ever occur to you that the rifle might have been there are the result of a conspiracy?

The most idiotic part of what you are saying is this; let's say I am in a position to "borrow" your gun and I take it and shoot somebody with it, would leaving that gun at the crime scene - by your own logic - incriminate you as the shooter?

Your word salad still does not answer the basic question;

Even if (and that's a massive "if") the rifle belonged to Oswald (in as much as that he ordered it for himself and received it from Klein's), how does that prove that Oswald himself was on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired?

Don't worry, I won't be surprised if you ignore the question or simply can not answer it. It would be nothing else than the game you've been playing for the past 6 months or so. I am used to it by now.