Smoke from the area of the knoll ...... was seen a couple of years later.
We know; it was the advancement of every possible flavor of conspriacy theory ever since that has been the result ...
ALL this from modern-day 'smokeless' powder? C'mon, as one poster put it earlier: "What were they using - a musket?"
NOW you've to to explain away a WHOLE lot of REAL evidence, which, of course you can't therefore you won't (THIS is the great Achilles Heel of conspiracy theories: there is ALWAYS hard evidence that exists BUT doesn't fit their 'theory' THEREFORE it must be explained away. MOST of the simple-minded public will 'but' these elaborate attempts, but, in the final analysis the critical minds will see through this.)
Sorry it was testified to immediately afterwards by several people not a couple of years later.
A musket would have been about as useful as the PoS Carcano claimed to have been used, a garbage gun if ever there was one.
I have seen no REAL evidence that Oswald was the killer only hypothetical statements and insinuations which do not bear scrutiny. Certainly nothing which would stand up in a court of law.
1) No evidence that the rifle claimed to have been found was the rifle claimed to have been ordered by Oswald;
2) No evidence that he ever picked up the rifle at the P.O., it was sent to a name not authorized to receive mail at that box;
3) No evidence that Oswald ever fired a rifle that day;
4) No evidence that Oswald ever bought ammunition OR had ammunition for the rifle;
5) No evidence that Oswald ever PRACTICED with the rifle;
6) No evidence that ANYONE ever duplicated this shooting with THAT rifle or that it could have done the deed with no chance to properly sight it in after re-assembly on the 22d;
7) No evidence that Oswald had ANY motive to do this;
8) No credible explanation of the Oswald "doubles" seen when it could not have been him. These "doubles" were ALWAYS acting in ways that would incriminate him or imply him capable of doing the deed;
9) No credible explanation as to why JFK's brains/skull were not blown all over the inside of the car from a shot from the back;
10) No explanation as to why the autopsy's were not conducted by competent forensic pathologists rather than paper pushing bureaucrats or how the "autopsy photos" showed the face unaffected by a shot from the rear.
11) No explanation as to why Hoover routinely suppressed information from his own informants about the plans for the assassination. Information which informations heard DIRECTLY from the lips of two of the most powerful Mafia dons. He was charged to deliver information on such threats to the Secret Service but relegated them to his "personal files."
That is just for starters. These are reasonable questions which would have to be answered in a fair trial though not in a smear job or kangeroo court. You want to take a crack at them or do you just prefer to attack the questioners?