Oswald took 10.2 seconds to fire all three shots.

[Royell Storing]

Right, thank you. I don't insist on this scenario - I don't insist on any scenario, because there are just too many variables - but I don't find this implausible at all. The fact that there is, at this late date, so much debate as to how many shots were fired, when they were fired, and from where they were fired is rather telling, I believe.

   This is what happens when a body is Stolen and "surgery to the head area" ensues. The Parkland Dr's observations are the Best Evidence regarding the condition of JFK's body.

[Tom Mahon]

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Just curious:

1) Do you agree that circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact?

2) Do you agree that a conclusion of fact that's based on a large quantity of circumstantial evidence is more likely to be correct than one that's based on just one or two bits of it?

3) Do you agree that criminal cases have been won and lost solely on circumstantial evidence?

4) Regarding the JFKA, do you think it's logical to infer that people were wittingly involved in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up?

5) How many people do you think were wittingly involved in the above activities?  Oodles and gobs?

6) Do you really think that's a logical inference?

7) Or do you think there was only one witting person -- "The Mastermind" -- and that all of the others were unwitting dupes?

[Dan O'meara]

Here we go again, besides your paranoid delusions, where's your solid evidence that refutes anything that Richard stated?
Waiting...............Zzzzz.......

JohnM

There's no need to refute what Richard is posting.
It's Richard's (and your) belief that, because the rifle can be traced to Oswald, it proves that Oswald took the shots.
You and Richard or any LNer for that matter cannot prove Oswald took the shots even if it was Oswald's rifle discovered on the 6th floor.
Any credible evidence regarding who was on the 6th floor before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald.

Any certainty that Oswald took the shots is faith-based. It is not evidence-based.
Any insistence on this certainty must always be challenged.

[Tom Mahon]

Any credible evidence regarding who was on the 6th floor before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald.

1) To whom are you alluding, and 2) how so?

[Dan O'meara]

1) To whom are you alluding, and 2) how so?

Let's not ignore the point of my post.
Do you agree that establishing Oswald's ownership of the Mannlicher-Carcano doesn't prove he actually took the shots?

[Tom Mahon]

Let's not ignore the point of my post. Do you agree that establishing Oswald's ownership of the Mannlicher-Carcano doesn't prove he actually took the shots?

Why should we ignore the illogic of your previous post?

[Dan O'meara]

Why should we ignore the illogic of your previous post?

I'm so surprised you can't bring yourself to answer such a straightforward question 
Nutter Test passed with flying colours.

[Tom Mahon]

I'm so surprised you can't bring yourself to answer such a straightforward question 
Nutter Test passed with flying colours.

Nice gaslighting.

But then again, you've had a lot of practice, haven't you.