Poll claims Oswald seen as ......

[John Iacoletti]

What's wrong with scrutinizing the evidence? The only person who could have a problem with that is somebody who simply doesn't have enough confidence in the evidence he is defending.

Exactly right.  The only person who would object to the "nitpicking" of evidence is somebody with lousy evidence and an agenda.

[John Iacoletti]

How to double the average intelligence of the forum posts in one easy step.

[Bill Chapman]

How to double the average intelligence of the forum posts in one easy step.

Bill Chapman

[Richard Smith]

No. It makes me a realist reaching a logical conclusion based on known facts.

But I'll make you a deal.....Forget proving that Oswald was on the 6th floor and even that he fired the shots at Kennedy. Just explain how he would have gone down the stairs (the only option, as you say) without being noticed by anybody and Dorothy Garner in particular. When you do that, I'll gladly accept that Oswald could indeed have been on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting. No CTer would ever do that. So, give it your best shot.... come on then.. prove my hypothesis wrong and convince me!

Now why do I expect another rant about everything except the answer to my question?

I've already explained this multiple times.  It is impossible to reconstruct the movements of Oswald and your witnesses to the level of precision that you insist is accurate.  It simply can't be done.  Even if you repeat it over and over and insist it is a fact.   Human beings do not recall their movements down to the second with that kind of precision.  You have grafted on to their testimony a narrative that suits your desired narrative (i.e. that Oswald is innocent) based upon unknowable information.  Any small variation allows Oswald to reach the lunchroom unnoticed.  Which he did as we know happened from the evidence left behind.

Now answer my question.  How can you not be a CTer if you think it is a fact, based upon the testimony you cite, that Oswald could not have come down the stairs from the 6th floor to the lunchroom?  What alternative option does that leave for him to reach the lunchroom if he didn't use the stairs or elevator?  The implication is clear if your facts are true as you have insisted.  He couldn't have reached the lunchroom and, thus, could not have been the assassin.  So explain to us how you are not a CTer if you think it is a proven fact that Oswald couldn't reach the lunchroom from the 6th floor.

[Martin Weidmann]

I've already explained this multiple times.  It is impossible to reconstruct the movements of Oswald and your witnesses to the level of precision that you insist is accurate.  It simply can't be done.  Even if you repeat it over and over and insist it is a fact.   Human beings do not recall their movements down to the second with that kind of precision.  You have grafted on to their testimony a narrative that suits your desired narrative (i.e. that Oswald is innocent) based upon unknowable information.  Any small variation allows Oswald to reach the lunchroom unnoticed.  Which he did as we know happened from the evidence left behind.

Now answer my question.  How can you not be a CTer if you think it is a fact, based upon the testimony you cite, that Oswald could not have come down the stairs from the 6th floor to the lunchroom?  What alternative option does that leave for him to reach the lunchroom if he didn't use the stairs or elevator?  The implication is clear if your facts are true as you have insisted.  He couldn't have reached the lunchroom and, thus, could not have been the assassin.  So explain to us how you are not a CTer if you think it is a proven fact that Oswald couldn't reach the lunchroom from the 6th floor.

So, you can't explain how Oswald could have gone down the stairs unnoticed nor can you show the evidence you now claim there is for him managing to do so. Got it!

As to this CT crap you keep on spouting. It's a waste of time. Nobody cares and I certainly don't care if you think I am a CT or not. It's just something you want to use to deflect the conversation away from the simple fact that you haven't got a shred of evidence for any of many questionable claims you have made and are still making.

You want us to believe that Oswald came down the stairs unnoticed, but when asked to explain how he could have done that, you become vague and hide, as the coward you are, behind unreliable human recollections. The bottom line is simple; you simply can not explain how Oswald could have managed to get down the stairs without being noticed and your claim there is evidence that proves it is simply a lie.

All you have is a rifle (which you think belongs to Oswald) and three shells. Everything else is a product of your imagination. You can not produce proof for Oswald being on the 6th floor at 12:30, for him firing the shots and for him coming down the stairs unnoticed, simply because it doesn't exist. One doesn't have to be a CT to understand this. Just having a functional brain and a sense for realism will do.

[John Iacoletti]

So, you can't explain how Oswald could have gone down the stairs unnoticed nor can you show the evidence you now claim there is for him managing to do so. Got it!

“Richard” just knows that it happened because that’s what happened. LOL.

[Walt Cakebread]

Exactly right.  The only person who would object to the "nitpicking" of evidence is somebody with lousy evidence and an agenda.

Yes, only a person who knows in his heart that he's wrong, but lacks the guts to face the truth, would object to someone picking through the "evidence" that was presented to us by LBJ's Special Select Blue Ribbon Committee.

A person who objects to someone pointing out a major flaw in the "evidence" and then cries when he's confronted with that flawed evidence is simply dishonest and coward , who doesn't understand the wisdom in "to thyself be true" .       

[Richard Smith]

So, you can't explain how Oswald could have gone down the stairs unnoticed nor can you show the evidence you now claim there is for him managing to do so. Got it!

As to this CT crap you keep on spouting. It's a waste of time. Nobody cares and I certainly don't care if you think I am a CT or not. It's just something you want to use to deflect the conversation away from the simple fact that you haven't got a shred of evidence for any of many questionable claims you have made and are still making.

You want us to believe that Oswald came down the stairs unnoticed, but when asked to explain how he could have done that, you become vague and hide, as the coward you are, behind unreliable human recollections. The bottom line is simple; you simply can not explain how Oswald could have managed to get down the stairs without being noticed and your claim there is evidence that proves it is simply a lie.

All you have is a rifle (which you think belongs to Oswald) and three shells. Everything else is a product of your imagination. You can not produce proof for Oswald being on the 6th floor at 12:30, for him firing the shots and for him coming down the stairs unnoticed, simply because it doesn't exist. One doesn't have to be a CT to understand this. Just having a functional brain and a sense for realism will do.

Why not answer the simple question posed and spare us the endless commentary?  You have falsely claimed as a fact that Oswald could not use the stairs to reach the lunchroom unnoticed from the 6th floor.  As that is the only apparent way for Oswald to have reached the lunchroom from the 6th floor, how does your conclusion not preclude Oswald from being the assassin?  Yet you refuse, for some inexplicable reason, to accept the implications of your own conclusion by confirming that it is your position that Oswald was innocent and framed as part of a conspiracy. 

So explain to us how you leave open any possibility of Oswald being on the 6th floor when he couldn't use the stairs or elevator to descend to the lunchroom where he was encountered by Baker.  That is impossible.  The only inference that can be made from your conclusion is that Oswald was not on the 6th floor.  Thus, he could not be the assassin, and someone framed him for this crime.  There is no way to reconcile your conclusion that Oswald couldn't use the stairs to descend to the lunchroom to account for his presence there after the assassination with Oswald still being the potential assassin on the 6th floor.  Rather, this highlights your Inspector Clouseau-like approach to this case.