Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory

[John Iacoletti]

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?

Serious answer: means, motive, opportunity. Along with reliable and conclusive objective evidence of his actual involvement.

[John Iacoletti]

The fact that Oswald's prints are on the rifle doesn't faze them. 

That’s because it’s not a fact.

[Bill Brown]

Serious answer: means, motive, opportunity. Along with reliable and conclusive objective evidence of his actual involvement.

Like what, for example? 

Give me an example of what you'd consider "reliable and conclusive objective evidence" of Oswald's involvement.

[Dan O'meara]

It doesn't help that all the evidence for who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald:

There are four eye-witnesses [Arnold, Roberts, Fischer and Brennan] that got a good look at the man on the 6th floor. Their descriptions of this man are consistent enough for us to conclude they are talking about the same man.
All four eye-witnesses state the man on the 6th floor wore a white/off-white shirt. Three describe it as an open-necked shirt. - a garment Oswald was not wearing that day and did not own.

Another eye-witness, Amos Euins, states time and time again the assassin had a "bald spot" on his head. Not a receding hairline, a bald spot, which is something entirely different:
"I seen a bald spot on this man's head, trying to look out the window. He had a bald spot on his head. I was looking at the bald spot."
Oswald had no such bald spot.

According to the LNer narrative, Oswald hid for over 20 minutes in the SN while BRW had his lunch on the 6th floor. However, Arnold Rowland saw a man with a scoped rifle on the 6th floor SW corner window 15 minutes before the motorcade arrived, at a time when Oswald was supposed to be hiding out in the SN. Arnold also saw a black male in the SN window at a time when BRW was on the 6th floor eating his lunch. Eight officers testified to seeing his lunch remains at the SN, three of the first officers on the scene actually testified that the lunch remains were on top of the boxes that formed the SN.

According to the LNer narrative Oswald rushes from the SN, in order to escape the TSBD. But Howard Brennan describes the assassin lingering at the window, admiring his handiwork. This is from Eyewitness to History:

"My first instinct was to look back up to that man on the sixth floor... By now the motorcade was beginning to speed up and in only a couple of seconds the President's car had disappeared under the triple underpass. To my amazement the man still stood there in the window! He didn't appear to be rushed. There was no particular emotion visible on his face except for a slight smirk. It was a look of satisfaction, as if he had accomplished what he had set out to do."

Harold Norman, directly below the SN hears the bolt of the rifle being worked, he hears the shells hitting the floor, but doesn't hear anyone rushing away from the scene. Jack Dougherty, stood near the stairs on the 5th floor, doesn't hear Oswald as he walks the 20ft across the floor from one staircase to another.  Dorothy Garner, who is stood by the stairs, hears Adams and Styles clattering down the stairs. She sees Truly and Baker come up the stairs. But doesn't see or hear Oswald in between the two as he walks the 20ft from one staircase to another. Neither do Betty Ann Foster or Mary Hollies who are stood by the east windows in the storage area of the 4th floor.
Oswald, rushing down through the building, wearing his work shoes on a wooden floor, doesn't make a sound [apparently].

It is reported Oswald stated that Oswald saw James Jarman and Harold Norman on the first floor, making their way to the west elevator after entering the rear door of the TSBD building. This is around 12:25pm, ten minutes after Rowland has spotted the man with the rifle on the 6th floor.

Brennan describes the man he sees on the 6th floor as being much older than Oswald.
He also describes the man as having a "fair complexion".
Ronald Fischer makes a similar observation concerning the man on the 6th floor, but contrasts it with Oswald's "dark" complexion.
"...looking at him from the street in the School Book Depository Building--if I could have been able to---if I could have seen that. I think, if he had been unshaven in the window, it would have made his complexion appear--well---rather dark; but I remember his complexion was light;"
Brennan also describes the shooter as being "neat" - not a word readily associated with Oswald.

It isn't just a case of not having evidence to place Oswald on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination [which Lners don't have], it's the case that whatever credible evidence there is - all of it - points away from Oswald being on the 6th floor at that time.
When will the LN community take this inconvenient fact on board?

[Richard Smith]

Your original question was premised on Oswald's ownership of the rifle.

No it wasn't. You do understand that anybody can read back what my initial question was. Here it is again;

Why are you misrepresenting the question?

Hilarious.  Your original question does exactly what I said it did.  It is premised entirely on Oswald's ownership of the rifle.  Here it is again:

"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?"

The "that" in your question relates to the rifle belonging to Oswald.  Thus, your question is premised entirely on Oswald's possession of the rifle.  You are asking how Oswald's ownership of the rifle proves his presence on the 6th floor.  LOL.  I realize that you stupidly dispute Oswald's ownership of the rifle, but here you are asking how "even if" the rifle belonged to Oswald that proves he was on the 6th floor.  And I explained this to you even though it is obvious. 

[Richard Smith]

Your original question was premised on Oswald's ownership of the rifle.

No it wasn't. You do understand that anybody can read back what my initial question was. Here it is again;

Why are you misrepresenting the question?

how idiotic it is to claim there is any doubt that Oswald was the shooter if it was his rifle found on the 6th floor.  Dropping a murder weapon that can be linked to a specific person at the crime scene is about as incriminating as it gets absent an alibi or explanation for its presence.

Are you really this superficial and naive? All you are presenting here is the hilarious assumption that the (alleged) owner of a weapon found at a crime scene is, without doubt, the shooter, when you can't even prove to a reasonable standard of proof that the man is actually the owner (and had possession) of that particular weapon. Wow! So much ignorance should be forbidden by law!

You have not provided nor even suggested any alternative explanation for the presence of Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor. 

As long as you can't prove it was "Oswald's rifle" on the 6th floor, I don't need to provide or suggest anything.

Just because it is not impossible as a theoretical matter that someone else could have brought it there and there is no time machine to disprove that baseless possibility does not create any doubt.

Oh boy, you're all over the place again. Why does that keep happening to you? How can you call a possibility "baseless" when you've just said that "there is no time machine to disprove it it"?

And the possibility of someone else planting the rifle at the 6th floor is most certainly not impossible. So, as long as you can't prove it was Oswald who left the rifle there, the possibility that he didn't leave it there does in fact create reasonable doubt.

An honest investigation is basically a process of elimination. When you can't eliminate a possibility you can not simply ignore it because it's inconvenient.

Disproving the negative to your subjective satisfaction is not a reasonable standard in the absence of any evidence that someone else had access to the rifle and an opportunity to plant it at the crime scene.

I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm asking you to prove that Oswald did own that particular rifle and left it at the 6th floor.

There is zero evidence that anyone other than Oswald had access to that rifle and brought it to his workplace.

There is zero evidence that Oswald had access to the rifle that was found on the 6th floor. If you disagree, just show me the evidence and I'll gladly admit that I am wrong.

You certainly have provided none or even attempted to do so.

What is there for me to provide? I have seen no evidence whatsoever that shows that the rifle found at the 6th floor of the TSBD is the same one that allegedly was stored in Ruth Paine's garage.

When are you going to understand that your assumptions and highly speculative conjecture are not evidence?

This response is so disorganized and contains so many internal inconsistencies and false premises that it should be framed and placed in the contrarian Hall of Fame.  Again, Martin asked a question that was premised upon Oswald's possession of the rifle.  Then he goes on and on here making a case that there is doubt about Oswald's ownership of the rifle.  We also learn here that if the police find the murder weapon at the scene of the crime and can trace that weapon to a specific individual who can't explain its presence there and has no alibi (in fact lies about ownership of the weapon) that the authorities would have to disprove every other possible way that the weapon could have arrived at that location using something like a time machine.  Martin has finally admitted it!  A time machine is needed in his contrarian world to prove any fact if he can dream up a mere baseless explanation.  His alternative explanation just needs to be theoretically not impossible.  Perhaps Elvis, for example, brought Oswald's rifle to the TSBD.  It's not impossible.  There is absolutely no evidence to suggest this happened, but no one has disproven it to Martin's subjective satisfaction.  So there must be doubt about Oswald doing so even though it is his rifle, at his place of work, with his prints, and he lies to the police about his ownership of the rifle and has no alibi.  Nothing to see there. 

[Jerry Organ]

Not all the critics believe the "conspiracy" was all-encompassing. Some see reason.

Allison: “Then everybody’s in on the conspiracy?
   The FBI and the CIA and J. Edgar Hoover and
   oil companies and the Pentagon and the men’s
   room attendant at the White House?”

Alvy: “I would leave out the men’s room attendant.”

[Martin Weidmann]

Hilarious.  Your original question does exactly what I said it did.  It is premised entirely on Oswald's ownership of the rifle.  Here it is again:

"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?"

The "that" in your question relates to the rifle belonging to Oswald.  Thus, your question is premised entirely on Oswald's possession of the rifle.  You are asking how Oswald's ownership of the rifle proves his presence on the 6th floor.  LOL.  I realize that you stupidly dispute Oswald's ownership of the rifle, but here you are asking how "even if" the rifle belonged to Oswald that proves he was on the 6th floor.  And I explained this to you even though it is obvious.

Isn't it just too funny when some clown tells the person who asked the question what the purpose of the question was.

I guess I will have to dumb my question down so you can possibly understand it. Let's give it a try, shall we?

How does the mere presence of a rifle prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired?