A Rock Solid Alibi.....

[Charles Collins]

The prestigious corner office was quite cluttered. Unless, of course one had bad intent and wanted to be hidden from any potential others on the floor...




The workers who selected the fifth floor also apparently liked the southeast corner office. But they knew the one on the floor above was cluttered...

[Charles Collins]

Or out of the sixth floor window either. At least not until Howard Brennan’s “change of heart” many days later.

That’s not true. Brennan gave a reasonably close description at the scene. And singled out LHO at the lineup later that evening as looking like the gunman. (And that’s what I said that you disagreed with.)

[Martin Weidmann]

The same tired contrarian nonsense.  Going round and round in circles of rambling commentary, deflection, and insults.  You have suggested that Oswald couldn't get from the 6th floor to the lunchroom unnoticed.  When it was pointed out to you that SOMEONE on the 6th floor did escape unnoticed, you became hysterical suggesting the following as a possible explanation for why this fantasy person could do something that you claim Oswald could not:

"[Oswald] would not have had the luxury and ability of being able to hang around on the 6th floor and mingle with the many law enforcement officers that flooded the floor, pretending to be one of them and simply walking away. Oswald, or any other TSBD employee, on the 6th floor would have stood out in much the same way Oswald did to Baker on the 2nd floor."

This is one of the most baseless and laughable claims in the history of this forum.  There is zero evidence that anyone was found hanging around on the 6th floor claiming to be a law enforcement officer.  Baker and Truly did not encounter any such person when they arrived on the floor.   Don't you think someone might mention that they encountered on the floor from which the shots were fired?  You also suggest a complete stranger would be less noticeable than Oswald who was an employee of the TSBD.  Unreal.  It's understandable why you are running away from your own theory, suggestion, or whatever you are calling this baseless nonsense.  You should apologize to intelligent people on this forum for wasting their time.

There is zero evidence that anyone was found hanging around on the 6th floor claiming to be a law enforcement officer.

Of course not, fool. That would be the point of hiding in the open. There were so many difference law enforcement agents on that floor that anybody who looked similar to them would not be noticed. Do you, rather stupidly, think that those officers were going round asking eachother's credentials?

Besides, there's also zero evidence that Oswald ran down the stairs after the last shot.

Baker and Truly did not encounter any such person when they arrived on the floor.   Don't you think someone might mention that they encountered on the floor from which the shots were fired?

What in the world are you rambling on about? You seem to be losing it completely! Do you think Baker and Truly searched every floor completely? If not, how would they possibly see somebody hiding behind some boxes at another part of the building? Geeez... does everything need to be explained to you?

You also suggest a complete stranger would be less noticeable than Oswald who was an employee of the TSBD.  Unreal.

Try to understand this; after the shooting it didn't take long for the 6th floor to be flooded with all sorts of officers from different agencies, who were all "complete strangers" there!

You should apologize to intelligent people on this forum for wasting their time.

Which only means that I should never have to apologize to you.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

That’s not true. Brennan gave a reasonably close description at the scene. And singled out LHO at the lineup later that evening as looking like the gunman. (And that’s what I said that you disagreed with.)

You'll notice that the behavior of Brennan - e.g., not immediately identifying the shooter as Oswald - is evidence that calls into question his credibility but the behavior of Oswald that calls into question his credibility or innocence is always dismissed. Always meaning: always.

So the rule in "Oswald defender land" is that the behavior of those implicating Oswald can be used against them but the behavior of Oswald implicating himself cannot be used against him. Because the latter behavior is suddenly not evidence. It's evidence when it helps him but not evidence when it hurts him.

The efforts by the Oswald defenders to clear him, the double standards, the intellectual inconsistency, the shamelessness is sometimes remarkable.

[Martin Weidmann]

You're adding so much on to the Stroud Letter, Garner can now see Adams and Styles on the staircase and can only hear them going down the stairs rather than Baker and Truly coming up.

Could it be you have not read what Dorothy Garner told Barry Ernest?

[Martin Weidmann]

You'll notice that the behavior of Brennan - e.g., not immediately identifying the shooter as Oswald - is evidence that calls into question his credibility but the behavior of Oswald that calls into question his credibility or innocence is always dismissed. Always meaning: always.

So the rule in "Oswald defender land" is that the behavior of those implicating Oswald can be used against them but the behavior of Oswald implicating himself cannot be used against him. Because the latter behavior is suddenly not evidence. It's evidence when it helps him but not evidence when it hurts him.

The efforts by the Oswald defenders to clear him, the double standards, the intellectual inconsistency, the shamelessness is sometimes remarkable.

Ah stop whining, cry baby

[Charles Collins]

You'll notice that the behavior of Brennan - e.g., not immediately identifying the shooter as Oswald - is evidence that calls into question his credibility but the behavior of Oswald that calls into question his credibility or innocence is always dismissed. Always meaning: always.

So the rule in "Oswald defender land" is that the behavior of those implicating Oswald can be used against them but the behavior of Oswald implicating himself cannot be used against him. Because the latter behavior is suddenly not evidence. It's evidence when it helps him but not evidence when it hurts him.

The efforts by the Oswald defenders to clear him, the double standards, the intellectual inconsistency, the shamelessness is sometimes remarkable.

 


I was watching a documentary about WWII recently. And they showed a statement from General Douglas MacArthur about FDR which went something like:

“He never tells the truth when a lie will suffice.”

Of course, that’s just political jockeying nonsense between the General and FDR.

But, I couldn’t help but think how well that actually applies to LHO. It’s a pity that the naysayers don’t seem to realize that.

[Alan Ford]

The prestigious corner office was quite cluttered. Unless, of course one had bad intent and wanted to be hidden from any potential others on the floor...




The workers who selected the fifth floor also apparently liked the southeast corner office. But they knew the one on the floor above was cluttered...

--"Hey, let's not go up to 6 after all. Let's go to 5"
--"Why?"
--"There's some boxes at one of the seven windows on 6."
--"Ugh, you're right. I couldn't concentrate on the parade knowing there's a bunch of boxes at another window. Actually I'd prefer 5 also on account of I'm scared of heights"
--"Thank you for saying that. Me too. And I really miss 5, we had so many good times laying the floor there. 6 is yucky."