If Oswald Was The Assassin, Did He Plan His Escape From The TSBD Very Well?

[Paul May]

I don't know, and only the people involved know the real story. But apparently it's innocent that there are multiple stories of how the shells are found. Any investigator would be curious about that, right? Of all the things I wrote, THAT'S what you focus on? All righty then...

Investigators can look at one piece of isolated evidence and reach different conclusions. However, the totality of ALL the evidence, when taken together with common sense thrown in can only reach one conclusion.

[Jim Brunsman]

Exactly right about the totality of the evidence. When presented with facts you don't like, you just ignore them and double down on a totally discredited account of the assassination. How many lone nutters have ever admitted they were duped by false evidence? None that I know of. When I was an adolescent studying the Warren Commission summary, I bought the "lone nut" story until I started researching more. It boils down to a matter of research, intellectual honesty and integrity. Again, no credible researcher can look at the evidence and believe there were only three shots. Happy to debate anyone concerning the case, but no matter how solid the evidence, there's very little chance of changing anyone's opinion. So why bother to try? Because the work of journalists on the assassination has been extremely poor. CIA control of the media is well known, even today, which is why I admire the independent researchers who have uncovered the evidence needed to totally destroy the Warren Commission's embarrassing whitewash.

[Thomas Graves]

Exactly right about the totality of the evidence. When presented with facts you don't like, you just ignore them and double down on a totally discredited account of the assassination. How many lone nutters have ever admitted they were duped by false evidence? None that I know of. When I was an adolescent studying the Warren Commission summary, I bought the "lone nut" story until I started researching more. It boils down to a matter of research, intellectual honesty and integrity. Again, no credible researcher can look at the evidence and believe there were only three shots. Happy to debate anyone concerning the case, but no matter how solid the evidence, there's very little chance of changing anyone's opinion. So why bother to try? Because the work of journalists on the assassination has been extremely poor. CIA control of the media is well known, even today, which is why I admire the independent researchers who have uncovered the evidence needed to totally destroy the Warren Commission's embarrassing whitewash.

Dear James,

Independent "researchers"? 

Like "Angleton specialists" Tom Mangold and Jefferson Morley, both of whom get things so wrong because they rely so heavily on bogus, duped-by-KGB sources like Leonard McCoy (see the five-page section called "The McCoy intervention" in the PDF by Tennent H. Bagley, below), HSCA perjurer John L. Hart,  and probable-mole, garrulous, Russia-born George "Teddy Bear" Kisevalter (see my thread on him in the Off Topic section) ?

LOL

No wonder you're so confused.

--  MWT 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08850607.2014.962362

[Michael Walton]

Jim,

Tom's 76 years old. He's bored. You're not going to get any semblance of an honest debate from him. I remember several years ago he posted some interesting stuff over on another forum. But they got tired of his shtick there and booted him out. So he loves to tease here, then switches tactics and says the Russians did it. That's the most you're going to get out him. Just an FYI...

[Jim Brunsman]

Tommy, the confusion is all yours. Not sure why you isolated two researchers I know little about. Frankly, another astoundingly irrelevant response...

[Paul May]

Tommy, the confusion is all yours. Not sure why you isolated two researchers I know little about. Frankly, another astoundingly irrelevant response...

As you tend to rely heavily on witness testimony, I’ll suggest to you an experiment. Take EVERY witness, pro or con OUT of the event. Now, rely ONLY on ballistic and medical evidence. Who’s the shooter?

[Bill Chapman]

As you tend to rely heavily on witness testimony, I’ll suggest to you an experiment. Take EVERY witness, pro or con OUT of the event. Now, rely ONLY on ballistic and medical evidence. Who’s the shooter?

Dirty Harvey