Spot The Difference

[Dan O'meara]

Obviously, the crime scene analysis in Nov. '63 would be vastly different than today.  Is that ideal? No.  But that doesn't negate for a second, however, the basic evidence that links Oswald to this crime beyond doubt.  His rifle, his prints, his bullet casings, no alibi, flight from the crime scene, involvement in another murder less than an hour later.  It's a slam dunk.  If we never know exactly how Oswald arranged the boxes because the cops moved them around while searching for evidence, then so be it.  It means nothing in terms of Oswald's guilt.

My point isn't about how the boxes were originally arranged.
It's about having two completely different set ups in evidence. If this was the only example of the profound incompetence/corruption of the investigation, it would still be bad enough. This is the crime scene.
The doubts about the investigation allow all sorts of  to proliferate - there can be little doubt about that - but to describe an investigation that is as shoddy as these pictures demonstrate as a "slam dunk" is way off.
It doesn't mean Oswald didn't do it but the confidence you exhibit about it is unwarranted.

[Richard Smith]

My point isn't about how the boxes were originally arranged.
It's about having two completely different set ups in evidence. If this was the only example of the profound incompetence/corruption of the investigation, it would still be bad enough. This is the crime scene.
The doubts about the investigation allow all sorts of  to proliferate - there can be little doubt about that - but to describe an investigation that is as shoddy as these pictures demonstrate as a "slam dunk" is way off.
It doesn't mean Oswald didn't do it but the confidence you exhibit about it is unwarranted.

The evidence is the evidence.  There is no doubt that Oswald's rifle was found on the floor from which witnesses saw a rifle in the SN window.  Fired bullet casings from that same rifle were found by that window.  Oswald's prints on are the boxes by that window.  He has no alibi for the moment of the shooting.  Instead he flees the scene and becomes involved in another murder.  He lies to the police about his ownership of the rifle.  It is actually difficult to imagine how we could have much more evidence of his guilt.  The pedantic analysis of chicken bones and arrangement of the boxes has some historical interest but does absolutely nothing to rebut the overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt.  That is mostly just rabbit hole nitpicking that many CTer like to go down instead of dealing with the basic evidence of the case.   I agree, however, that the investigators provided fodder to CTers by making many premature statements about the investigation that were erroneous.   The issue, however, is not whether the investigation was ideal by modern standards but whether LHO assassinated JFK.  And there is no doubt as to the latter.

[Dan O'meara]

The evidence is the evidence.  There is no doubt that Oswald's rifle was found on the floor from which witnesses saw a rifle in the SN window.  Fired bullet casings from that same rifle were found by that window.  Oswald's prints on are the boxes by that window.  He has no alibi for the moment of the shooting.  Instead he flees the scene and becomes involved in another murder.  He lies to the police about his ownership of the rifle.  It is actually difficult to imagine how we could have much more evidence of his guilt.  The pedantic analysis of chicken bones and arrangement of the boxes has some historical interest but does absolutely nothing to rebut the overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt.  That is mostly just rabbit hole nitpicking that many CTer like to go down instead of dealing with the basic evidence of the case.   I agree, however, that the investigators provided fodder to CTers by making many premature statements about the investigation that were erroneous.   The issue, however, is not whether the investigation was ideal by modern standards but whether LHO assassinated JFK.  And there is no doubt as to the latter.

"The issue, however, is not whether the investigation was ideal by modern standards"

To imagine having two different set ups for the crime scene was ideal by the standards of the 1960's is dubious, to say the least.
To imagine this is "nit-picking" is plain wrong.
As for the "pedantic" examination of the lunch remains...if Oswald's prints would've been on the soda pop bottle it would have been one of the most important pieces of physical evidence in the case, placing Oswald in the SN. But his prints weren't found on it so it was lost/discarded/ignored. Questions of a potential accomplice weren't entertained for a second. When the evidence was sent off to the FBI that evening the lunch remains were not even considered evidence. The Oswald-Did-It-Alone mentality was in full force on day one. Again, this doesn't mean Oswald didn't do it, it just means the investigation was so incompetent and so blinkered that it can come as no surprise it is still being questioned today.
Just to remind you:




How crazy is this?

[Richard Smith]

"The issue, however, is not whether the investigation was ideal by modern standards"

To imagine having two different set ups for the crime scene was ideal by the standards of the 1960's is dubious, to say the least.
To imagine this is "nit-picking" is plain wrong.
As for the "pedantic" examination of the lunch remains...if Oswald's prints would've been on the soda pop bottle it would have been one of the most important pieces of physical evidence in the case, placing Oswald in the SN. But his prints weren't found on it so it was lost/discarded/ignored. Questions of a potential accomplice weren't entertained for a second. When the evidence was sent off to the FBI that evening the lunch remains were not even considered evidence. The Oswald-Did-It-Alone mentality was in full force on day one. Again, this doesn't mean Oswald didn't do it, it just means the investigation was so incompetent and so blinkered that it can come as no surprise it is still being questioned today.
Just to remind you:




How crazy is this?

It doesn't strike me as a big deal that the boxes were moved in the search for evidence and perhaps no one remembered exactly how they were found.  Again, not ideal but so what?  Oswald's rifle was found.  Fired bullet casings from that rifle were found.  His prints are on all the relevant evidence.  After nearly 60 years of every official investigation and many "researchers" looking under every rock, there is still no credible evidence of the involvement of anyone other than Oswald.  There are some folks who would not accept that Oswald was the assassin even if they had a time machine. 

Just because we can never know everything with absolute certainty doesn't mean we can't know anything or reach reasonable conclusions about what happened.   That is the basic distinction between LNers and CTers.  CTers are unable to distinguish information from knowledge.  They become overwhelmed by endless details.  They see anomalies or unimportant details that can't be exlained to their satisfaction as de facto proof of conspiracy. The conclusion or implications they draw from this information doesn't have to add up to any coherent counter narrative or even be mutually consistent.  They can draw inconsistent conclusions from the evidence and not miss a beat (e.g. the purpose of the conspirators was to start a war with Cuba but the conspirators framed Oswald and ignored evidence of Cuban involvement).  Until someone can explain the presence of Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor and why Oswald lied to the DPD about his ownership of that rifle, there is no real uncertainty about the only issue that really matters.  Who killed JFK?  The evidence confirms that is LHO even if we can't answer every question about that day with certainty.

[Dan O'meara]

It doesn't strike me as a big deal that the boxes were moved in the search for evidence and perhaps no one remembered exactly how they were found.  Again, not ideal but so what?  Oswald's rifle was found.  Fired bullet casings from that rifle were found.  His prints are on all the relevant evidence.  After nearly 60 years of every official investigation and many "researchers" looking under every rock, there is still no credible evidence of the involvement of anyone other than Oswald.  There are some folks who would not accept that Oswald was the assassin even if they had a time machine. 

Just because we can never know everything with absolute certainty doesn't mean we can't know anything or reach reasonable conclusions about what happened.   That is the basic distinction between LNers and CTers.  CTers are unable to distinguish information from knowledge.  They become overwhelmed by endless details.  They see anomalies or unimportant details that can't be exlained to their satisfaction as de facto proof of conspiracy. The conclusion or implications they draw from this information doesn't have to add up to any coherent counter narrative or even be mutually consistent.  They can draw inconsistent conclusions from the evidence and not miss a beat (e.g. the purpose of the conspirators was to start a war with Cuba but the conspirators framed Oswald and ignored evidence of Cuban involvement).  Until someone can explain the presence of Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor and why Oswald lied to the DPD about his ownership of that rifle, there is no real uncertainty about the only issue that really matters.  Who killed JFK?  The evidence confirms that is LHO even if we can't answer every question about that day with certainty.

"The conclusion or implications they draw from this information doesn't have to add up to any coherent counter narrative or even be mutually consistent"

It is surely time for a coherent counter-narrative to be produced that (non-mental) CTers can get behind as there are aspects of this case that do not sit well with the LN narrative (nearly everyone who was on the 6th floor lying in their various statements, the Rose Cherami case, Shelley in New Orleans etc.)
Until then it's just endless rabbit-hole 

I disagree about the importance of having two completely different photos of the crime scene in evidence and just repeating "Oswald's rifle" isn't addressing the issues being raised in this thread. I get the impression, because of the bitterness generated by the fringe (see Otto's post above), you can't engage in any sensible discussion about the incompetence/corruption of the investigation without half a dozen arseholes jumping down your throat.

It's all really f^*king annoying.

Other than the points raised in this post, it is very difficult to argue with anything you're saying.

[Richard Smith]

"Oswald's rifle" - - LOL

No Warren wanker, including you, have so far been able to support that claim.

Can't wait to see you go down in flames trying just one more time, please!

The evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle is well documented.  Maybe instead of my recounting it once again you can tell us what evidence is lacking.  There are photos, forms, serial numbers and even prints that link Oswald to a specific rifle.  The one found on the 6th floor.  But if that doesn't do it, perhaps outline for us how investigators link a suspect to a weapon and what is lacking in this context.

[Patrick Jackson]

So having two completely different set-ups in evidence is ok with you?
You're satisfied with that?
It doesn't tell you something about the incompetent/corrupt nature of the investigation?

You are right. I was comparing boxes photos a lot and there are many differences that it is absolutely impossible to determine which is the exact set up Oswald left behind. You simply cannot state that any photo of the sniper nest is the exact what DPD found. Crime scene was interupted in who knows which and how many ways.