Poll claims Oswald seen as ......

[Jerry Freeman]

  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.

What a stupid question.
You state "CTer" like it's some sort of cult.
Get it straight...you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to disbelieve, criticize, or be skeptical of some other theory.
 Martin Weidmann [I've noticed] has avoided advancing theoretical doctrine as much as possible.
That LHO was ever on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting is actually based on nothing but conjecture and speculation.
The Warren dogma stipulates that Oswald did it because...it was his rifle.
                                    That's it. That's all they really have.                                                                       
 All the Report defenders can seem to do is tweak a supposition here and scooch in a premise there that proves absolutely nothing.
 

[Walt Cakebread]

What a stupid question.
You state "CTer" like it's some sort of cult.
Get it straight...you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to disbelieve, criticize, or be skeptical of some other theory.
 Martin Weidmann [I've noticed] has avoided advancing theoretical doctrine as much as possible.
That LHO was ever on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting is actually based on nothing but conjecture and speculation.
The Warren dogma stipulates that Oswald did it because...it was his rifle.
                                    That's it. That's all they really have.                                                                       
 All the Report defenders can seem to do is tweak a supposition here and scooch in a premise there that proves absolutely nothing.
 

The Warren dogma stipulates that Oswald did it because...it was his rifle.    That's it. That's all they really have. 

Yes, And I believe  he ordered it from Kleins ( to be used as a throw down gun at Walker's ) it was in his possession, but I doubt that he bought the money order to be sent to Kleins....Therefore, technically it was NOT his rifle.   But the paper trail led to Lee Oswald....   And that's the way he had planned....  He left the carcano near Walker's house after he fired a bullet through the window in hope that police dogs would find the rifle and it would be traced to him after he was in Cuba.   That would have lent credibility to the story that he had tried to shoot one of Castro's most vocal foes. 

BUT .... The carcano was NOT fired on 11/22/63 .....  It was simply a stage prop to fool the investigators into believing that he had fired shots at JFK.    An honest investigation would have revealed that the rifle was not fired that day..... But Hoover had control.           

[Martin Weidmann]

What a stupid question.
You state "CTer" like it's some sort of cult.
Get it straight...you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to disbelieve, criticize, or be skeptical of some other theory.
 Martin Weidmann [I've noticed] has avoided advancing theoretical doctrine as much as possible.
That LHO was ever on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting is actually based on nothing but conjecture and speculation.
The Warren dogma stipulates that Oswald did it because...it was his rifle.
                                    That's it. That's all they really have.                                                                       
 All the Report defenders can seem to do is tweak a supposition here and scooch in a premise there that proves absolutely nothing.
 

Get it straight...you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to disbelieve, criticize, or be skeptical of some other theory.

Spot on. But it's part of Richard's dishonest game to try and put labels on people so he has something to attack. It's the same thing with the strawman arguments he always comes up with. He needs those so he has something to ridicule.

The simple fact is that, despite Richard's claims to the contrary, there simply isn't any conclusive evidence to support most, if not all, of his claims. That's why he will never answer questions, never explain anything, completely ignore the evidence and arguments presented by others and constantly purposely misrepresent what others are supposed to have said.

It's the strategy of a loser with an agenda. Richard's behavior is the best evidence for just how weak the case against Oswald really is.

[Walt Cakebread]

Get it straight...you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to disbelieve, criticize, or be skeptical of some other theory.

Spot on. But it's part of Richard's dishonest game to try and put labels on people so he has something to attack. It's the same thing with the strawman arguments he always comes up with. He needs those so he has something to ridicule.

The simple fact is that, despite Richard's claims to the contrary, there simply isn't any conclusive evidence to support most, if not all, of his claims. That's why he will never answer questions, never explain anything, completely ignore the evidence and arguments presented by others and constantly purposely misrepresent what others are supposed to have said.

It's the strategy of a loser with an agenda. Richard's behavior is the best evidence for just how weak the case against Oswald really is.

Richard's behavior is the best evidence for just how weak the case against Oswald really is. humb1:

[Richard Smith]

What a stupid question.
You state "CTer" like it's some sort of cult.
Get it straight...you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to disbelieve, criticize, or be skeptical of some other theory.
 Martin Weidmann [I've noticed] has avoided advancing theoretical doctrine as much as possible.
That LHO was ever on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting is actually based on nothing but conjecture and speculation.
The Warren dogma stipulates that Oswald did it because...it was his rifle.
                                    That's it. That's all they really have.                                                                       
 All the Report defenders can seem to do is tweak a supposition here and scooch in a premise there that proves absolutely nothing.
 

I can't decipher what you are babbling about here.  This was a simple point that was being made.  If Oswald did not commit this crime, then there must have been a conspiracy to frame him to explain the evidence against him.  In addition, Martin refuses to even admit that he is a CTer.  He is apparently ashamed to be linked to folks such as yourself despite agreeing with you.  So take it up with him.

[Richard Smith]

Get it straight...you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to disbelieve, criticize, or be skeptical of some other theory.

Spot on. But it's part of Richard's dishonest game to try and put labels on people so he has something to attack. It's the same thing with the strawman arguments he always comes up with. He needs those so he has something to ridicule.

The simple fact is that, despite Richard's claims to the contrary, there simply isn't any conclusive evidence to support most, if not all, of his claims. That's why he will never answer questions, never explain anything, completely ignore the evidence and arguments presented by others and constantly purposely misrepresent what others are supposed to have said.

It's the strategy of a loser with an agenda. Richard's behavior is the best evidence for just how weak the case against Oswald really is.

So much commentary and personal insults but again no answer.  Could Oswald have reached the 2nd floor lunchroom after the assassination from the 6th floor if he did not use the stairs (which you claim is a demonstrable fact)?  That is a straightforward yes or no question that does not require paragraph after paragraph of commentary about me. 

[Michael Walton]

So much commentary and personal insults but again no answer.  Could Oswald have reached the 2nd floor lunchroom after the assassination from the 6th floor if he did not use the stairs (which you claim is a demonstrable fact)?  That is a straightforward yes or no question that does not require paragraph after paragraph of commentary about me.

No. Because here's why. If he was supposedly up there, he fired the last shot. He wiped down the boxes enough so only a partial [dubious] palm print was found on one of the boxes, after supposedly moving around several to build the nest. He's going to make an elaborate deal about hiding the gun so he can try to get away. Here's the so-called madman who supposedly had his wife take photos of him holding up the pistol, rifle and Commie newspapers, chest strutting outward. This guy wants to make a big big statement here.

Yet, when he actually does the shooting he wants to hide the gun but forgets to take the shells. Why bother, you know? But I digress. So he wipes down the gun well enough so that nothing is found on the gun. The gun has as sight on it that's not even aligned properly and he had no time to test fire before doing the deed.

Then he puts it between the boxes. Then he goes down and as part of his grand plan to escape undetected, instead of scooting right out the front door, he instead takes a detour to refresh himself by buying himself an ice cold Coca Cola.

If you and many others want to continue to believe that that's what happened that day, wonderful. But the above scenario makes absolutely no sense and goes against all natural inclination of how it was said it went down.

So again you want the simple answer, here it is. No.

[Martin Weidmann]

I can't decipher what you are babbling about here.  This was a simple point that was being made.  If Oswald did not commit this crime, then there must have been a conspiracy to frame him to explain the evidence against him.  In addition, Martin refuses to even admit that he is a CTer.  He is apparently ashamed to be linked to folks such as yourself despite agreeing with you.  So take it up with him.

I didn't think you would be dumb enough to even try to reply, but it seems I was wrong.

So much commentary and personal insults but again no answer.  Could Oswald have reached the 2nd floor lunchroom after the assassination from the 6th floor if he did not use the stairs (which you claim is a demonstrable fact)?  That is a straightforward yes or no question that does not require paragraph after paragraph of commentary about me. 

You're lying again. I have never claimed that it is a demonstrable fact that Oswald did not use the stairs.

I don't know if Oswald had any other way of getting from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor lunchroom nor do I even know if he was on the 6th floor at all. The total absence of any credible evidence leaves the possibility wide open that he wasn't and if he wasn't nobody would have seen him coming down the stairs either.

And while we're on the subject of no answers; where is the evidence for your claim that Oswald was on the 6th floor, that he was the shooter and that he managed to go down the stairs unnoticed?