You know the evidence that places Oswald in the SN (i.e. his rifle, fired bullet casings from his rifle, his prints on the SN boxes, his prints on the bag, no credible alibi, flight from the scene, involvement in another murder less than an hour later, lying to the police about his ownership of any rifle or explanation for its presence in the building). We also know from several witnesses that a rifle was pointed out the 6th floor window at the moment of the assassination putting someone in the SN at 12:30. We also know that Oswald was encountered on the 2nd floor sometime shortly after the shooting. Your insistence that it was 75 seconds is your subjective estimate. It could have been less time or more time. There is insufficient information to track Oswald's movements and those of others down to the level of detail that you insist is accurate. Just a short variation changes the whole equation and allows Oswald to make it to the 2nd floor unseen. There is no reason or basis to debate the unknowable while ignoring the actual evidence that tells us where Oswald was at a particular time.
Your explanation for all the evidence left on the 6th floor and escape of whomever you believe was in the SN is preposterous and baseless to the point of being humorous. Your desperate clinging to some pedantic timeline that you have constructed to suit your desired outcome is identical to your bizarre approach to Oswald's involvement in the murder of Tippit. You attempt to construct a timeline from imprecise witness estimates to prove he couldn't be there when multiple witnesses place him at the time and place of the shooting with the gun in his hand. It's Alice-in-Wonderland logic to suggest that you can conjure up a timeline by somehow knowing not just to the minute but often within a few seconds that some action took place when the participants themselves didn't have this level of knowledge and were merely making estimates. And then claim over and over that this casts doubt on the actual evidence. The evidence speaks for itself. It places Oswald in the SN at 12:30 and then in the lunchroom whenever the Baker encounter took place. Of course, if someone HAD seen Oswald coming down the stairs, you would dismiss that with some contrarian explanation like he worked in building, or it doesn't prove that he was on the 6th floor just because he was seen on the stairs etc. An endless impossible standard of proof.
You know the evidence that places Oswald in the SN (i.e. his rifle, fired bullet casings from his rifle, his prints on the SN boxes, his prints on the bag, no credible alibi, flight from the scene, involvement in another murder less than an hour later, lying to the police about his ownership of any rifle or explanation for its presence in the building). Mere assumptions and unsubtantiated claims and none of it proves that Oswald was in the SN at 12:30. If this is what you call evidence, then you believe in fairytales, pure and simple.
We also know that Oswald was encountered on the 2nd floor sometime shortly after the shooting. Your insistence that it was 75 seconds is your subjective estimate. It could have been less time or more time. Why do you insist in this stupidity? First of all I never claimed it was exactly 75 seconds. That's just another one of your lies. And secondly, Baker encountered Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom, which means that Oswald was already there when Baker arrived there. So, all you need to do is figure out how long it took Baker to get there. We have film of him running from his parked motorbike to the front entrance and in one of the movies made about this case (can't remember which one it was) they actually showed the actors playing Baker and Truly running from the front entrance of the first floor to the entrance of the stairs. Combined it tells us that Baker got to the lunchroom at about 80 seconds after the shots. As Oswald was already there he must have taken less to come down the stairs. A 5 year old can figure this out, so what is it about this simple matter that you just don't understand?
There is insufficient information to track Oswald's movements and those of others down to the level of detail that you insist is accurate. Just a short variation changes the whole equation and allows Oswald to make it to the 2nd floor unseen. Utter BS, but convince us and give us an example how that could have worked. I bet you can't!
There is no reason or basis to debate the unknowable while ignoring the actual evidence that tells us where Oswald was at a particular time. Except that there simply is no such evidence. Jesse Curry agreed that nobody has ever conclusively placed Oswald on the 6th floor with a rifle in his hand, yet here you are claiming you have the evidence for that. So, why don't you just show us what you have that Curry didn't have?
Your explanation for all the evidence left on the 6th floor and escape of whomever you believe was in the SN is preposterous and baseless to the point of being humorous. Your desperate clinging to some pedantic timeline that you have constructed to suit your desired outcome is identical to your bizarre approach to Oswald's involvement in the murder of Tippit. You attempt to construct a timeline from imprecise witness estimates to prove he couldn't be there when multiple witnesses place him at the time and place of the shooting with the gun in his hand. It's Alice-in-Wonderland logic to suggest that you can conjure up a timeline by somehow knowing not just to the minute but often within a few seconds that some action took place when the participants themselves didn't have this level of knowledge and were merely making estimates. You sound like a broken record playing a terrible tune. This entire rant is a complete waste of time.
And then claim over and over that this casts doubt on the actual evidence. The evidence speaks for itself. It places Oswald in the SN at 12:30 and then in the lunchroom whenever the Baker encounter took place. I have had better conversations with a brick wall. Again what evidence are you talking about? Your assumptions are not evidence. There is no evidence that places Oswald in the SN at 12:30 because if there was we would have heard about it al long time ago. All you've got is conclusions not supported by the evidence, no matter how ofter you repeat your BS
Of course, if someone HAD seen Oswald coming down the stairs, you would dismiss that with some contrarian explanation like he worked in building, or it doesn't prove that he was on the 6th floor just because he was seen on the stairs etc. An endless impossible standard of proof.And there is the usual whining. As the saying goes; Ill doers are ill deemers. But at least you admit that nobody saw Oswald coming down the stairs. Now all you need to do is tell us how he managed to do that and you will have convinced me. Go on then....
