There is only one remaining question

[Paul May]

After 55 years, was somebody else pulling Oswald?s strings?  It?s unlikely as time passes whether this sole question will ever be answered. I, for one doubt it. History has recorded LHO as the one shooter. I agree with this to a 99% certainty.  That 1% remains elusive.

[Walt Cakebread]

After 55 years, was somebody else pulling Oswald?s strings?  It?s unlikely as time passes whether this sole question will ever be answered. I, for one doubt it. History has recorded LHO as the one shooter. I agree with this to a 99% certainty.  That 1% remains elusive.

It seems to me that Lee was being misguided ..... so yes somebody else was pulling the strings that had him acting the puppet....

But he was NOT being coerced, or forced. He was being misled and thought that he was doing something entirely different than what the puppet master was doing.  Viewed from Lee's side of the staged event he was being portrayed as a friend of Fidel Castro's revolution and was taking a pot shot at JFK....But from the other side of the stage the puppet master had set up a hit team to actually murder the President.....

[Paul May]

Another theory, unprovable. That?s my point. There may have been a conspiracy to have LHO shoot and kill the POTUS that day. Yet, it cannot not be proven with hard, credible evidence.

[Walt Cakebread]

Another theory, unprovable. That?s my point. There may have been a conspiracy to have LHO shoot and kill the POTUS that day. Yet, it cannot not be proven with hard, credible evidence.

Not sure what you consider "hard, credible evidence"... I know you accept the finding of LBJ's "special Blue Ribbon Committee"and that finding sure as hell is NOT based on "credible evidence"   

And that's the problem....  Our convictions are based on what we see as "credible evidence"   But If we focus on just a single point and examine that point to determine if it credible then we can proceed on to other points.

Let's take the scope issue....  It is a substantiated fact that the scope was never mounted correctly so that the scope could be used to aim the rifle accurately.   There's no denying this is a fact...  Now since that is a fact anybody who attempted to shoot and hit an 8 inch target that was more than twenty yards from the muzzle of the rifle could not possibly have hit that target.

The FBI said the bullets fired from the rifle were impacting a target over 4 inches off from the aiming point at a range of a mere 15 yards... At twenty yards the bullets would have been about 8 inches off the aiming point...

[Paul May]

Oswald qualified as a Marine sharpshooter.  It is my belief, and mine only perhaps the scope played no role in the assassination. Oswald likely new the sites provided him with more accuracy and the final head shot at 88 yards on a downward trajectory was not terribly difficult for a sharpshooter.  Yet, this is but one piece of the puzzle. I for one don?t look at only one piece. I?ve examined the totality of ALL the evidence assembled. Unfortunately, many CT?s, I?m not saying you, examine ?evidence? to confirm their own biased theory at the expense of understanding Oswald and who and what he represented.

[Walt Cakebread]

Oswald qualified as a Marine sharpshooter.  It is my belief, and mine only perhaps the scope played no role in the assassination. Oswald likely new the sites provided him with more accuracy and the final head shot at 88 yards on a downward trajectory was not terribly difficult for a sharpshooter.  Yet, this is but one piece of the puzzle. I for one don?t look at only one piece. I?ve examined the totality of ALL the evidence assembled. Unfortunately, many CT?s, I?m not saying you, examine ?evidence? to confirm their own biased theory at the expense of understanding Oswald and who and what he represented.

On one hand you give Lee credit for being an expert with rifles, but on the other hand you say that he was so inept that he wouldn't even bother to check zero of the scope....

If Lee was the expert that you believe he was then he would not have kept that worthless bulky piece of junk on the rifle...

If what you believe were true ...He would have removed that mis-mounted piece of junk while disassembling the rifle ( as you believe) before stuffing the miscellaneous  parts into a paper bag.

[Paul May]

I don?t disagree with your statement. The anomalies in Oswalds?s behavior before, during and after the event are curious indeed. Law enforcement looks at consciousness of guilt along with physical and medical evidence. No one researcher, regardless of their beliefs can explain with a high degree of certainty LHO?s behavior on 11/22. That?s my point. It will never be explained with 100 % certainty.

[Walt Cakebread]

I don?t disagree with your statement. The anomalies in Oswalds?s behavior before, during and after the event are curious indeed. Law enforcement looks at consciousness of guilt along with physical and medical evidence. No one researcher, regardless of their beliefs can explain with a high degree of certainty LHO?s behavior on 11/22. That?s my point. It will never be explained with 100 % certainty.

C'mon Mr May, don't try to evade....  You have just said that you agree with me, and that Lee Oswald would not have kept that piece of junk scope on the rifle, because it was just a worthless piece of junk that added weight and bulk to a rifle that you believe he was disassembling to stuff into a paper sac to smuggle into the TSBD. 

But we both know that the scope was on the rifle when it was found.  So either Lee was NOT the rifle expert that you try to portray, or he was a complete nut who didn't know enough to check zero on his rifle before setting out on his mission.