Buell Wesley Frazier

[Martin Weidmann]

So much learning going on today.  Remarkable progress.  The thing speaks for itself.  If the evidence is deemed conclusive that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 as the evidence, history books, and law enforcement indicate and that he was on the 2nd floor a couple of minutes later, then that is conclusive that he moved from the 6th to 2nd floor unnoticed in that timeframe.  The evidence supports both conclusions even if his exact movements can't be recreated with certainty or even deemed improbable by those who apply an impossible standard of proof to the topic. 

All the subjective nitpicking of witness testimony and pedantic attempts to analyze events down to the second are not necessary to reach this conclusion.  The inability to do so creates no doubt of the fact.
How can be unknowable, even contrary to some interpretations, and still raise no doubt that it could be done because the evidence confirms that it was done.  It is not necessary for me or anyone to prove how it was done to the satisfaction of anyone else. Once a thing has occurred, the odds against it occurring are no longer relevant in determining whether it did in fact occur.  Even if the odds were a billion to one against it happening, and there is nothing like that in this context.  This is called discovering the simplicity that lies on the far side of complexity (i.e. not going down the rabbit hole).  Res ipsa loquitur.

If the evidence is deemed conclusive that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30

The only important word in this sentence is "If". There is no evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor! None whatsoever! The WC couldn't provide any and poor "Richard" completely failed to produce it not all that long ago

as the evidence, history books, and law enforcement indicate and

There is no evidence, nor are there any claims by "law enforcement" and as far as history books are concerned; just check out the Donation of Constantine, which the history books, for more than a 1000 years, falsely claimed to authentic! So much for history books!

All the BS that "Richard" comes up with is nothing but a pathetic appeal to authority (when no real authority exists) and none of it speaks for itself for anybody else except "Richard"!

[Dan O'meara]

So much learning going on today.  Remarkable progress.  The thing speaks for itself.  If the evidence is deemed conclusive that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 as the evidence, history books, and law enforcement indicate and that he was on the 2nd floor a couple of minutes later, then that is conclusive that he moved from the 6th to 2nd floor unnoticed in that timeframe.  The evidence supports both conclusions even if his exact movements can't be recreated with certainty or even deemed improbable by those who apply an impossible standard of proof to the topic. 

All the subjective nitpicking of witness testimony and pedantic attempts to analyze events down to the second are not necessary to reach this conclusion.  The inability to do so creates no doubt of the fact.
How can be unknowable, even contrary to some interpretations, and still raise no doubt that it could be done because the evidence confirms that it was done.  It is not necessary for me or anyone to prove how it was done to the satisfaction of anyone else. Once a thing has occurred, the odds against it occurring are no longer relevant in determining whether it did in fact occur.  Even if the odds were a billion to one against it happening, and there is nothing like that in this context.  This is called discovering the simplicity that lies on the far side of complexity (i.e. not going down the rabbit hole).  Res ipsa loquitur.

"If the evidence is deemed conclusive that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 as the evidence, history books, and law enforcement indicate..."

There is not a single piece of credible evidence that puts Oswald "on the 6th floor at 12:30". Not a single piece.
This is the crux of your mental problems regarding this case. You blindly believe it is a fact that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm, you can not be swayed from this "fact", yet EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF CREDIBLE EVIDENCE regarding who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald.
Your idea, that Oswald was on the 6th floor taking the shots is a THEORY. You simply can't face this truth and you have been made to look a real fool over this issue only recently.
You are way out of your depth here because your inability to think correctly about this puts you at a massive disadvantage.

Just for fun - name a single piece of credible evidence that puts Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm.
This challenge goes out to all Nutters.
PS: Before you even dare think about it, the presence of the rifle does not place Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm.
 

[Tim Nickerson]

Just for fun - name a single piece of credible evidence that puts Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm.
This challenge goes out to all Nutters.
PS: Before you even dare think about it, the presence of the rifle does not place Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm.

Name a single piece of credible evidence that puts Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm. Except for the rifle. That one doesn't count. Neither do the shells. 

CT logic, triple distilled.

[Martin Weidmann]

Name a single piece of credible evidence that puts Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm. Except for the rifle. That one doesn't count. Neither do the shells. 

CT logic, triple distilled.

Hi Tim, it's been a long time...

Ok, let's play this game.

Let's say, for argument's sake, the rifle found at the 6th floor did in fact belong to Oswald and the shells matched the rifle, how exactly does that prove that Oswald himself was on the 6th floor at 12:30, when the shots were fired?

[Tim Nickerson]

Hi Tim, it's been a long time...

Ok, let's play this game.

Let's say, for argument's sake, the rifle found at the 6th floor did in fact belong to Oswald and the shells matched the rifle, how exactly does that prove that Oswald himself was on the 6th floor at 12:30, when the shots were fired?

How would the jury view it when presented with additional evidence and facts?  Where was Oswald when the shooting was taking place? His prints were on the long paper sack found in the sniper's nest. A defense counsel could try to raise doubt about it to the jury but it would still be there for their consideration. They would have the FBI conclusion about the fibres found in the sack presented to them as well. Why did Oswald flee the building so soon after the assassination? Could the Tippit murder be used against him in any way when being tried for the Kennedy murder?

Beyond reasonable doubt in the standard, not beyond any doubt.

[Dan O'meara]

Name a single piece of credible evidence that puts Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm. Except for the rifle. That one doesn't count. Neither do the shells. 

CT logic, triple distilled.

Really Tim??
How does the rifle put Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm?
How do the shells put Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm?
You should really engage your brain before just wading in.
Nutter "logic" in a nutshell.

[Martin Weidmann]

How would the jury view it when presented with additional evidence and facts?  Where was Oswald when the shooting was taking place? His prints were on the long paper sack found in the sniper's nest. A defense counsel could try to raise doubt about it to the jury but it would still be there for their consideration. They would have the FBI conclusion about the fibres found in the sack presented to them as well. Why did Oswald flee the building so soon after the assassination? Could the Tippit murder be used against him in any way when being tried for the Kennedy murder?

Beyond reasonable doubt in the standard, not beyond any doubt.

I'm not really interested in what a jury would think about a circumstantial case like this one. It would be up to the defense to discredit the circumstantial arguments by the prosecution, and here we don't have the case of the defense!

But that's not the question I asked. How does the presence of a rifle belonging to Oswald prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30?

[Tim Nickerson]

I'm not really interested in what a jury would think about a circumstantial case like this one. It would be up to the defense to discredit the circumstantial arguments by the prosecution, and here we don't have the case of the defense!

But that's not the question I asked. How does the presence of a rifle belonging to Oswald prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30?

Logically, the rifle being his proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30.