> There is at least one eyewitness that saw Oswald in the window from the ground below.

This kind of statement is what makes the "lone nut" theory seem shaky to me. People say this over and over again, as if to make it true, and it relies on the audience not really knowing the facts very tightly.

Here's the reality: lots of people reporting seeing someone in the window. Only one, Howard Brennan, provided a description that matched Oswald's profile (which, after all, was just white male near the median height).

He said he saw Oswald there minutes before the shooting, when Oswald was seen by several people on the first-floor.

Brennan's account was also quite strange: he said that the shooter was standing and that he was able to see the shooter's pants, both of which are obviously impossible. He claimed that he heard the first shot and then looked over at the TSBD, seeing the rifleman, but the Zapruder film clearly shows him doing what everyone else did: looking over at the grassy knoll at the sound of the first shot (be reminded that the vast majority of witnesses claimed that the shots came from that direction).

He failed to pick Oswald out of a lineup.

Here's a great summary of the Oswald / Dealy Plaza eyewitness evidence:

http://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-grassy-knoll-...

> Firing on the motorcade where he did was an easier shot -- the car was moving away from him and at an angle that made his necessary movement much less than if the motorcade was coming at him.

I just... I want to understand this position, but it's just absolutely crazy to me. It's like saying that position 4 on a skeet range is easier than position 1. Have you ever played JFK Reloaded? Does that not show you how much easier the shot on Houston is?

> The two black gentlemen sitting in the window just below oswald testified over and over that they heard the shells hitting the floor just above them.

It's certainly possible that somebody fired a weapon from the 6th floor. I don't think there's particularly strong evidence that it was Oswald. I also think that it's likely that it was a talented, trained, experienced long-range specialist, capable of setting up and firing in under 5 seconds.

> Connally's testimony, frankly, doesn't matter.

Brother / Sister: Don't you see how brashly you are casting aside evidence? This is the person who was literally closest to the murdered President. An experienced hunter. Former military man. How can you just brush off his testimony?

I mean, this is the crux of the case. Connally was not hit by the same bullet, and it's really, really clear. He said so. His wife said so. The motorcycle office right next to him said so. The video shows him almost a full second after the first shot, still holding his hat (with the hand that was shattered by a bullet (I believe a fraction of a second later)) and pretty clearly unwounded.

I just... it feels like you're ignoring all of the most important evidence. I mean, what say you about these things? Don't you think that Bugliosi does some pretty serious backflips to get around this stuff?

> The two black gentlemen sitting in the window just below oswald testified over and over that they heard the shells hitting the floor just above them.

I'm not sure what relevance their color or that they testified "over and over" has. OK, so it's completely possible that somebody was firing from the 6th floor. Indeed several witnesses said so.

But was it Oswald? Or was it somebody far more talented? Somebody with the proper training and experience to be able to set up and fire in 5 seconds, hitting a moving target at 80 yards?

Look: I can respect your position that there is no physical evidence that any person other than Oswald was involved. I even acknowledge that there is some inculpatory evidence against Oswald.

But I think it's a bridge too far to suggest that it's a certainly.

My assessment is that Oswald was not the shooter. If he had a fair trial today, I have to believe that he'd be acquitted.