You sound like a petulant child who is slowly learning that there is no Santa Claus and is throwing a tantrum. Very amusing. Try this. Here is what a mature adult would do if they actually believed they had evidence that suggests a conspiracy to kill JFK or creates doubt as to the historically accepted fact that Oswald did it. Take your argument/evidence to the NY Times or the DPD or FBI and explain that you have proven a conspiracy to assassinate JFK or at least created doubt or whatever you are calling this endless pedantic nonsense. Let us know what they say. I bet it's not that you have "crushed" the official conclusion. Or are they all still "in" on the plot? LOL.
How is it a "lie" that the evidence places Oswald in the SN? Perhaps you have a different interpretation of that evidence, but it is not a "lie" to characterize that evidence as placing him there. Every official investigation has come to that conclusion based on the evidence. None have accepted your silly theory. It is immature to get that emotional when someone disagrees with your pedantic nonsense. Even the most outlandish CTer must acknowledge that the evidence suggests Oswald was in the SN. Why? Because even in a conspiracy to frame Oswald, the evidence would have been planted to frame Oswald for the crime by placing him in the SN! That would be the entire purpose of planting the evidence in a conspiracy. To place Oswald in the SN.
As a result, the difference of opinion is not the sufficiency of the evidence to place Oswald in the SN as you stupidly suggest. It is not a "lie" to conclude that the evidence places him in the SN. It was either left by Oswald during the commission of the crime or by a fantasy conspirator to frame him for that crime. Now assume the fetal position and try to think like an adult for once since I realize this is going beyond the short attention span of the younger generation. If you were planning to frame someone for the assassination of the president and spent months or years doing so, what would be arguably the most important factor to control? Here is a hint. In a conspiracy scenario, no plan to frame Oswald would allow the patsy to freely move about the building and be in the 2nd floor lunchroom at the moment of the assassination. They wouldn't leave that to chance. The location of the "patsy" at the moment the crime was committed to ensure that he doesn't have an alibi is critical to that plan! Good grief. No one can seriously suggest that in a conspiracy scenario that involves framing Oswald that he would be allowed to sit in the 2nd floor lunchroom or move about the building of his own free will including doing the most likely thing in that circumstance like going outside to watch the motorcade with his coworkers. It is so absurd as to be laughable. Try to see the forest for once instead of just the trees. The evidence places Oswald in the SN. If it was planted to frame Oswald, the conspirators would have ensured that he was not roaming about the building. His movements would be controlled either with or without his cooperation. He is not sitting in the 2nd floor lunchroom, and therefore, all your pedantic nonsense on this topic (most of which is a projection of your own subjective opinions onto imprecise testimony and witness recollection to reach a desired outcome) is superfluous.
You sound like a petulant child who is slowly learning that there is no Santa Claus and is throwing a tantrum. Very amusing. And you sound like a devious moron, constantly peddling an easily disprovable lie, who doesn't have the backbone to own up when he's caught out.
Not particularly amusing.
Here is what a mature adult would do if they actually believed they had evidence that suggests a conspiracy to kill JFK or creates doubt as to the historically accepted fact that Oswald did it. Take your argument/evidence to the NY Times or the DPD or FBIWhat a moronic thing to say.
Just to clarify, the posts I've made are in respect to the subject of this thread - the "lost interview" with Vicki Adams. In it she confirms the information she gave in her WC testimony - that she raced down the stairs immediately after the first shot, that she hit the first floor within 60 seconds of the last shot and that she saw Lovelady and Shelley on the first floor, near the elevators when she got there.
This is important information as it reveals that Shelley and Lovelady lied about their movements after the assassination.
I am asking the questions - why would they race towards the back of the first floor immediately after the shooting and why would they lie about their movements?
At no point have I mentioned Oswald, or whether or not he took the shots. That is not the subject of this thread.
Yet here you come, wading in like some rabid fanatic frothing at the mouth crying about Oswald's guilt.
You're an embarrassment.
How is it a "lie" that the evidence places Oswald in the SN? And here we go again with you're deviousness.
A really unsavoury trait of some Nutters.
The lie you're constantly peddling is that the evidence places Oswald in the SN
at the time of the shooting.In fact, why don't we have your actual words:
"The evidence places Oswald on the 6th floor (his rifle, prints and absence of any alibi) at the moment the shots were fired (i.e. 12:30) "richard smith"PS: If you actually do come across some evidence placing Oswald in the SN at the time of the shooting I advise you to contact the NY Times
