Blonde

[Richard Smith]

Shall I tell them that a guy calling himself Richard Smith is telling people that Oswald killed Kennedy without being able to support any of his claims with actual evidence?   

I don't believe they are as obsessed with me as you are.  Why not tell "them" your evidence that leads you to conclude that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs"?  If that is the case, then you have proven Oswald is innocent, and you are a conspiracy theorist as it is the only possible implication to be drawn from YOUR conclusion.  Get back to us with their response.  Sounds like a Pulitzer Prize winning story to exonerate Oswald.  That is if they believe it and accept your "evidence."  You don't do that yourself, but maybe they will have more confidence in your "evidence" than you do.

[Richard Smith]

Apparently, the Loons expect LN evidence in the form of Hollywood-quality motion-picture film, indisputable infallible witnesses (priests, rabbis? people with a bionic recording device?) or their own direct verification through time-travel.

Meanwhile CTs get to pull things out of their az-se like the Shroud Letter and the ditzy Vicki Adams (I saw Jack Ruby; time me in my 3" heels, I dare you). Sandra Styles says they first went to the passenger elevator and she's "mistaken".

All too true.  The most amazing thing about an otherwise uninteresting Martin is that he reached a conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" - the only way to have come down from the 6th floor after the assassination - but he refuses to accept the only possible implication of his OWN conclusion.  That Oswald couldn't have been the 6th floor assassin since those stairs are the only way to have reached the 2nd floor lunchroom in the known timeframe.  A mind-bending psychological insight into the contrarian mind.  He takes issue even with his own conclusions.  An exercise in self-loathing. 

[Charles Collins]

I think this thread is quite revealing and actually confirms everything I've always said. That is, people who think the government got it right on Kennedy's murder actually, deep down, don't like Kennedy, the family or whatever. So there's a heavy dose of bias involved.

It reminds me of the investigator who hated women in general, and whores specifically. Suppose a whore is found dead in an alley and this investigator has to find out who killed her. He'll do the least amount of work and secretly write it off as, "Eh, she deserved it."

The same here with Richard and many others who think the Feds got it right. They really don't like Kennedy and, therefore, Oswald did it alone and deep down, Kennedy "deserved it." I sure wouldn't want those kind of people investigating my loved one's murder.

Good grief man, this is one of the stupidest things I have seen written on this forum. 

[Martin Weidmann]

I don't believe they are as obsessed with me as you are.  Why not tell "them" your evidence that leads you to conclude that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs"?  If that is the case, then you have proven Oswald is innocent, and you are a conspiracy theorist as it is the only possible implication to be drawn from YOUR conclusion.  Get back to us with their response.  Sounds like a Pulitzer Prize winning story to exonerate Oswald.  That is if they believe it and accept your "evidence."  You don't do that yourself, but maybe they will have more confidence in your "evidence" than you do.

All this BS and no trace of even a shred of evidence for his claims. 

then you have proven Oswald is innocent

This is exactly the reason why I won't let you get away with your arrogant crap. I don't need to prove anybody innocent. When you claim that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he managed to get down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot, it's you who needs to prove it, in order to prove his guilt.

[Martin Weidmann]

Apparently, the Loons expect LN evidence in the form of Hollywood-quality motion-picture film, indisputable infallible witnesses (priests, rabbis? people with a bionic recording device?) or their own direct verification through time-travel.

Meanwhile CTs get to pull things out of their az-se like the Shroud Letter and the ditzy Vicki Adams (I saw Jack Ruby; time me in my 3" heels, I dare you). Sandra Styles says they first went to the passenger elevator and she's "mistaken".

Apparently, the Loons expect LN evidence in the form of Hollywood-quality motion-picture film, indisputable infallible witnesses (priests, rabbis? people with a bionic recording device?) or their own direct verification through time-travel.

Thank you for implicitly admitting that the LNs have no evidence that shows Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. As it becomes beyond obvious in Chapter 4 of the WC Report, it's all assumption piled on assumption!


Meanwhile CTs get to pull things out of their az-se like the Shroud Letter and the ditzy Vicki Adams (I saw Jack Ruby; time me in my 3" heels, I dare you). Sandra Styles says they first went to the passenger elevator and she's "mistaken".

Whether you like it or not, the Stroud letter (you can't even get the name right) actual exists. It's evidence (just in case you don't know what that word means). Rankin received it and buried it in his files.
 
Sandra Styles says they first went to the passenger elevator and she's "mistaken".

Hilariously hypocritical. First he complains that CTs ask for "indisputable infallible witnesses" (which is utter  ) and then he himself wants to rely on Sandra Styles as if she is such an "indisputable infallible witnesses". 

You can cherry pick what Sandra Styles allegedly said as much as you like, but in reality she has made several different statements over time and in at least one of them she even conceded that Victoria Adams may be right after all.

Also, you don't have to believe Adams or Garner. There is photographic evidence showing Sandra Styles standing in front of the TSBD entrance on Elm street at around 12:36. A further time indicator of her presence there, at that time, is that she re-entered the building through the front door before the building was locked down.

There is no way for Adams and Styles to get to the front entrance of the building at 12:36, unless they did in fact leave the 4th floor when Adams and Garner said they did. Nobody needs a time machine for that, just a functional brain.

I have already offered you to discuss the Adams/Styles/Garner timeline and you ran away from it as hard as you can. Pardon me for not taking seriously anything you have to say on this subject.

[Martin Weidmann]

All too true.  The most amazing thing about an otherwise uninteresting Martin is that he reached a conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" - the only way to have come down from the 6th floor after the assassination - but he refuses to accept the only possible implication of his OWN conclusion.  That Oswald couldn't have been the 6th floor assassin since those stairs are the only way to have reached the 2nd floor lunchroom in the known timeframe.  A mind-bending psychological insight into the contrarian mind.  He takes issue even with his own conclusions.  An exercise in self-loathing.

he refuses to accept the only possible implication of his OWN conclusion.  That Oswald couldn't have been the 6th floor assassin since those stairs are the only way to have reached the 2nd floor lunchroom in the known timeframe.

I have never refused to accept any of this. It's just another one of your many misrepresentations of the actual facts. Why would I not accept this when the preponderance of the available evidence clearly suggests this is most likely what happened.

What I don't accept is your stupid premise that I must consider Oswald to be innocent because he couldn't have come down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot.

It seems all this is going way over your head or you simply ignore the distinction to keep on misrepresenting what I have actually said.

[John Iacoletti]

Off topic and asked and answered.  See WC report.  See HSCA Report.

A cop-out and comedy gold as well. This is like the follower of another kind of religion saying “read the bible” when asked for evidence for the existence of a god.

[John Iacoletti]

Apparently, the Loons expect LN evidence in the form of Hollywood-quality motion-picture film, indisputable infallible witnesses (priests, rabbis? people with a bionic recording device?) or their own direct verification through time-travel.

You have that exactly backwards. The loons know that they have insufficient conclusive evidence to support their story, so all they can do is strawman attack the “standards” of the people who point it out.