Poll claims Oswald seen as ......

[Richard Smith]

There doesn't appear to be any other way to reconcile these conclusions except that you believe Oswald must be innocent

I don't have to believe that Oswald was innocent, just because he wasn't the assassin. Why should I believe that?

So your conclusion IS that Oswald wasn't the assassin?

[Martin Weidmann]

So your conclusion IS that Oswald wasn't the assassin?

Stop showing off your ignorance by asking dumb questions.

My conclusion is that you can not provide any evidence that shows Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he came down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot.

[Richard Smith]

Stop showing off your ignorance by asking dumb questions.

My conclusion is that you can not provide any evidence that shows Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he came down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot.

LOL.  Is it YOUR conclusion that Oswald "wasn't the assassin"?  Yes or no.  This isn't difficult since you presumably know your own position. 

[Bill Chapman]

You're asking Mr "Smith" to produce and present the impossible.   Richard couldn't possibly produce an iota of evidence that Lee Oswald was on the sixth floor at 12:30 that day.     But we do have Captain Fritz telling us that Jarman and Norman were on the 1st floor at 12:27 and Lee Oswald told Fritz that he saw them walk by the 1st floor lunchroom, at that time.  It's highly unlikely that Lee could have been firing a rifle from that sixth floor window just three minutes later.....and then have been seen by officer Baker in the second floor lunchroom at 12:32 .....

Lee Oswald told Fritz
_Then it must be true
  Okay, he can go

[John Iacoletti]

The reason "Richard" struggles with this so much is because he forms conclusions without substantiation, so he expects others to do the same thing.

[Martin Weidmann]

The reason "Richard" struggles with this so much is because he forms conclusions without substantiation, so he expects others to do the same thing.

Indeed.

But what can you expect from somebody who doesn't know the difference between an opinion and a claim, confuses assumptions with actual evidence and make claims he can not support with any evidence?

[Richard Smith]

Indeed.

But what can you expect from somebody who doesn't know the difference between an opinion and a claim, confuses assumptions with actual evidence and make claims he can not support with any evidence?

So you have concluded that Oswald wasn't the assassin?  That's not a trick question.  Why won't you even state YOUR own position instead of deflecting with endless personal commentary?  It is very amusing.  Let us summarize. 

1)  You concluded that "Oswald didn't come down the stairs".

2) You appear to agree that Oswald couldn't have been the assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs."

So just confirm that your position is that Oswald was not the assassin.  That is the only apparent implication that can be drawn from YOUR conclusions.  Why not just clarify that? 

[Martin Weidmann]

So you have concluded that Oswald wasn't the assassin?  That's not a trick question.  Why won't you even state YOUR own position instead of deflecting with endless personal commentary?  It is very amusing.  Let us summarize. 

1)  You concluded that "Oswald didn't come down the stairs".

2) You appear to agree that Oswald couldn't have been the assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs."

So just confirm that your position is that Oswald was not the assassin.  That is the only apparent implication that can be drawn from YOUR conclusions.  Why not just clarify that?

1)  You concluded that "Oswald didn't come down the stairs".

I concluded that all the available evidence points to him not coming down the stairs as well as that you are unable to substantiate your claim that he did come down the stairs with even a shred of evidence.

2) You appear to agree that Oswald couldn't have been the assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs."

It's a reasonable and logical inference. Even more so after you failed completely to provide any persuasive evidence for your claim that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired.

So just confirm that your position is that Oswald was not the assassin.  That is the only apparent implication that can be drawn from YOUR conclusions.

Does this mean that you  believe my opinions are correct and can't possibly be wrong?