Box Dimensions?

[Richard Smith]

You can keep on reproducing this McAdams boilerplate till you're blue in the face, Mr. Smith, it still won't get you anywhere.

Let me repeat:

Even if we were to be foolish enough to accept all your claims here, you would still only have an evidentiary pattern that is ambiguous-----------it could point to Mr. Oswald as (suicidally stupid) lone gunman; Mr. Oswald as (suicidally trusting) gunman in a conspiracy; Mr. Oswald as (suicidally trusting) non-gunman but accomplice; Mr. Oswald as innocent patsy.

But I do sympathize with you in your frustration, Mr. Smith, I really do.

Concerned regards.......... 

I'm not sure that I understand your logic.  Fired bullet casings from OSWALD'S rifle were found by the window from which the shots were fired.  OSWALD'S prints were on the SN boxes used as a gun platform (no other TSBD employee left prints on those boxes).  OSWALD'S rifle was left as the scene of the shooting.  OSWALD had no credible alibi, he fled the scene, and murdered a police officer.  But you still think that even if all that is accurate, that it still doesn't link him to the crime?  Unreal.

[Richard Smith]

Unable to provide credible evidence to support his claims and absolutely incapable of debating an issue honestly, Richard, true to form, just repeats the same old flawed and bogus claims over and over hoping that somehow one day they might become true.   

Maybe "seagulls" framed Oswald?  Right?  They are apparently industrious birds according to Martin from "Europe."

[Alan Ford]

I'm not sure that I understand your logic.  Fired bullet casings from OSWALD'S rifle were found by the window from which the shots were fired.  OSWALD'S prints were on the SN boxes used as a gun platform (no other TSBD employee left prints on those boxes).  OSWALD'S rifle was left as the scene of the shooting.

~Yawwwwwwn~

I re-repeat:

Even if we were to be foolish enough to accept all your claims here, you would still only have an evidentiary pattern that is ambiguous-----------it could point to Mr. Oswald as (suicidally stupid) lone gunman; Mr. Oswald as (suicidally trusting) gunman in a conspiracy; Mr. Oswald as (suicidally trusting) non-gunman but accomplice; Mr. Oswald as innocent patsy.

I'll let you in on a little secret, Mr. Smith: the reason you can't put Mr. Oswald at the SN window at 12:30pm is that your heroes in the 'investigation' knew they couldn't dare put him there definitively. So don't beat yourself up too much, ok?

 

[Richard Smith]

~Yawwwwwwn~

I re-repeat:

Even if we were to be foolish enough to accept all your claims here, you would still only have an evidentiary pattern that is ambiguous-----------it could point to Mr. Oswald as (suicidally stupid) lone gunman; Mr. Oswald as (suicidally trusting) gunman in a conspiracy; Mr. Oswald as (suicidally trusting) non-gunman but accomplice; Mr. Oswald as innocent patsy.

I'll let you in on a little secret, Mr. Smith: the reason you can't put Mr. Oswald at the SN window at 12:30pm is that your heroes in the 'investigation' knew they couldn't dare put him there definitively. So don't beat yourself up too much, ok?

 

How does evidence that is linked to OSWALD and ONLY Oswald point to a conspiracy or non-gunman?  Unreal.  And the people who you think framed Oswald for this crime were, for some inexplicable reason, fearful of placing him at the window?  That makes no sense.  I honestly hope this is just a kind of hobby to play devil's advocate and you don't actually believe this nonsense.

[Alan Ford]

How does evidence that is linked to OSWALD and ONLY Oswald point to a conspiracy or non-gunman?

This is like teaching Danish grammar to a donkey.

If an assassination conspiracy wished to frame Mr. OSWALD and ONLY Mr. Oswald, would they
a) not leave behind any evidence incriminating to Mr. OSWALD and ONLY Mr. Oswald?
b) leave behind some evidence incriminating to Mr. OSWALD and ONLY Mr. Oswald?

Unreal.  And the people who you think framed Oswald for this crime were, for some inexplicable reason, fearful of placing him at the window?

You are mixing up two different groups of people 

[John Iacoletti]

Poor Oswald.  So unlucky again.  In his role as an "order filler", he somehow managed to be the ONLY TSBD employee to leave his prints on the very boxes found in SN.   And these are unopened boxes.  So his bad luck continued.  He apparently was the ONLY TSBD employee who had to move these very boxes to get to his stock! HA HA HA.  The contrarians can't even believe this defense attorney nonsense.

Poor "Richard".  He actually thinks this "bad luck" (as he puts it) is evidence of murder.  HA HA HA.

[John Iacoletti]

Other than a time machine it is difficult to understand how there could be any more evidence of the fact.  What do you believe is lacking?  The shots were fired from the 6th floor window at 12:30.  Fired bullet casings from a rifle belonging to Oswald were found by that window.  Oswald's prints are on the SN boxes.  His prints are on a long bag found near that window.  His rifle is left on that floor.  He has no credible alibi, flees the building within minutes, kills a police officer and lies to the police about the rifle and many other things.  It is a drumbeat of guilt.  Criminals take measures to avoid detection while committing the act.  Not every crime is captured on film.  That does not create any doubt, however, when a mountain of evidence is left at the scene.  Guilty.

"rifle belonging to Oswald" . LOL.
"long bag found near that window". LOL.
"flees the building". LOL.
"kills a police officer". LOL.
"lies to the police". LOL.
"guilt". LOL.
"mountain of evidence". LOL.

[Alan Ford]

Poor "Richard".  He actually thinks this "bad luck" (as he puts it) is evidence of murder.  HA HA HA.

For me, what seals Oswald's guilt is his extreme luck in not being seen by a single witness who could positively identify him as the man at the window. Sociopathic killers often have this demonic ability to screw with decent folks' cognitive response. Guilty!