The Sign of a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory

[Martin Weidmann]

I understand why I've been confused by the point your making about Euins.
At 12:36 PM on the DPD tapes Sgt Harkness makes a call:
"Witness says shots came from fifth floor, Texas Book Depository store at Houston and Elm. I have him with me now and we are sealing off the building."
You don't seem to realise that this witness was Amos Euins.
It doesn't matter what Euins went on to say or was reported to have said.
It is completely irrelevant.
What matters is that within minutes of the assassination Euins had told Harkness that the shots had come from the 5th floor (I believe Euins made a common mistake when trying to assess which floor it was as the first floor of the TSBD has no windows. He was actually talking about the 6th floor).
As far as I'm concerned, this is incredibly strong evidence that Euins saw a man with a rifle pointing towards the President at the moment of the assassination.

We know also from the DPD tapes that 4 minutes after the assassination Booby Hargis (I think) makes the first call about the TSBD:
"A passer-by states that the shots came from the Texas School Book Depository Building"
although I'm not sure who this witness is.
One minute later Haygood calls in:
"I talked to a guy at the scene who says the shots were fired from the Texas School Book Depository Building with the Hertz Rent A Car sign on top."
Again, I'm not sure who this witness is.
One minute after this is the Harkness call with Euins' information and two minutes after this is Brewer's call:
"A witness says he saw 'em pull the weapon from the window off the second floor on the southeast corner of the Depository Building."
We also know from Barnett's testimony that within three minutes of the assassination Brennan had come forward with his information.

Within eight minutes of the shooting witnesses had approached five different officers with information that the shots had come from the TSBD.
Fritz's behaviour makes a lot of sense when he is viewed as a co-conspirator whose specific function was to control the evidence/suspect/early investigation.

As I 've said, the problem with Rowland's testimony is that he has a black man in the SN at the same time as he sees the man with the rifle.
They cannot accept his observation of the man with the rifle even though it totally supports the testimony of others who witnessed a white male with a rifle on the 6th floor. If they accept that, they also have to accept that he saw Bonnie Ray Williams having his lunch in the SN at the same time.
This is so big a problem that they discard this star witness testimony about a white man with a rifle on the 6th floor just before the motorcade arrives.

You are definitely missing something.
There is not one speck of evidence to support what you're saying and lots of evidence against it (ie: no early witnesses suggested the Dal-Tex as a location for the shooter.)
It is a story you've made up that cannot be corroborated, a fantasy if you will.

Other than that it's rock solid.

You are definitely missing something.
There is not one speck of evidence to support what you're saying and lots of evidence against it (ie: no early witnesses suggested the Dal-Tex as a location for the shooter.)
It is a story you've made up that cannot be corroborated, a fantasy if you will.


Again, it was and still is an hypothesis.

hypothesis:

a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.

It is a story you've made up that cannot be corroborated, a fantasy if you will.

Which makes it no different than your Gang of Four theory. The fact that witnesses pointed to the TSBD tells you nothing about the involvement of the four men you accuse of being part of a conspiracy. The fact that Brennan and Euins saw a man in the window with a rifle or pipe doesn't even support your claim that it was Dougherty and that he was the shooter.

And saying that Fritz's behaviour makes a lot of sense when he is viewed as a co-conspirator is no more corroboration than me saying Doughtery could have been a decoy because it would explain why nobody was seen running down the stairs after the shots were fired.

But perhaps for you a theory without solid evidence is better that a hypothesis that lacks evidence. In any case, the main difference seems to be that you want to defend your theory and I am merely testing the possible validity of my hypothesis

[Dan O'meara]

You are definitely missing something.
There is not one speck of evidence to support what you're saying and lots of evidence against it (ie: no early witnesses suggested the Dal-Tex as a location for the shooter.)
It is a story you've made up that cannot be corroborated, a fantasy if you will.


Again, it was and still is an hypothesis.

hypothesis:

a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.

It is a story you've made up that cannot be corroborated, a fantasy if you will.

Which makes it no different than your Gang of Four theory. The fact that witnesses pointed to the TSBD tells you nothing about the involvement of the four men you accuse of being part of a conspiracy.

And saying that Fritz's behaviour makes a lot of sense when he is viewed as a co-conspirator is no more corroboration than me saying Doughtery could have been a decoy because it would explain why nobody was seen running down the stairs after the shots were fired.

But perhaps for you a theory without solid evidence is better that a hypothesis that lacks evidence. In any case, the main difference seems to be that you want to defend your theory and I am merely testing the possible validity of my hypothesis

I'm perfectly aware it was a hypothesis.
The post I responded to - involving your hypothesis of Dougherty the decoy, distracting attention from the Dal-Tex - contained the following statement:

"A hypothesis that can not stand when scrutinized needs to fail. But so far I have not really seen a weakness. Perhaps I missed something..."

So I scrutinised your hypothesis and found a glaring weakness - that there's zero evidence to back this hypothesis up.
Which is surprising considering the, almost impossible, standards you hold others to whilst maintaining that "not much can be considered a fact in this case".
Rather than counter this scrutiny you've just started lashing out!

Your hypothesis could not withstand even the most cursory scrutiny and, as in your own words, it "needs to fail".

PS: No thanks needed for clearing up your misunderstanding regarding Euins. He is a credible witness. he saw a man pointing a rifle towards the President at the moment of the shooting from the SN.

[Martin Weidmann]

I'm perfectly aware it was a hypothesis.
The post I responded to - involving your hypothesis of Dougherty the decoy, distracting attention from the Dal-Tex - contained the following statement:

"A hypothesis that can not stand when scrutinized needs to fail. But so far I have not really seen a weakness. Perhaps I missed something..."

So I scrutinised your hypothesis and found a glaring weakness - that there's zero evidence to back this hypothesis up.
Which is surprising considering the, almost impossible, standards you hold others to whilst maintaining that "not much can be considered a fact in this case".
Rather than counter this scrutiny you've just started lashing out!

Your hypothesis could not withstand even the most cursory scrutiny and, as in your own words, it "needs to fail".

PS: No thanks needed for clearing up your misunderstanding regarding Euins. He is a credible witness. he saw a man pointing a rifle towards the President at the moment of the shooting from the SN.

So I scrutinised your hypothesis and found a glaring weakness - that there's zero evidence to back this hypothesis up.

That's not a weakness. It's a given for a hypothesis. By your criteria every hypothesis ever made needs to be dismissed instantly, just because there is no evidence to support it yet.

The first question that needs to be answered in a hypothesis is; is there a circumstance that makes it an impossibility? The answer for my hypothesis is; no, there isn't. It is not impossible that the man seen in the window was a decoy, nor is it impossible that shots were actually fired from the Dal-Tex building. The next question would have to be; can credible evidence be found to support the hypothesis. In this case we never got to that point because you dismissed it instantly, probably to protect your own pet theory, by making the classic mistake of only looking at the evidence published by the WC. Just how many interviews did the FBI conduct and for how many of those are there TD 302 reports that never got to the WC? Who knows what's in those?

For example, are you aware the FBI investigated a claim from a worker at the Dal-Tex that a day before the assassination she saw men putting rifles in cars behind the TSBD. The chased it all the way to Mexico to clear up the matter and as far as I know none of it is mentioned in the WC report or 26 volumes.

Which is surprising considering the, almost impossible, standards you hold others to whilst maintaining that "not much can be considered a fact in this case".

First of all, you agreed with me that not much can be considered a fact in this case. Secondly, I don't hold anybody to almost impossible standards. If you make a claim or present a theory you either have evidence for it or you don't. Normally people who lack that evidence are the ones complaining about my high standard of proof. Rather telling, don't you think?

Rather than counter this scrutiny you've just started lashing out!

There was nothing to counter. Your so called scrutiny was no more that saying you can't find evidence for it so it needs to be dismissed. And since when is pointing out the flaws in your theory "lashing out"? You really need to have a good look in the mirror. One moment we had a normal conversation and the next you are in full attack mode calling my hypothesis a fantasy.

Your hypothesis could not withstand even the most cursory scrutiny and, as in your own words, it "needs to fail".

You really don't understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, don't you?

PS: No thanks needed for clearing up your misunderstanding regarding Euins. He is a credible witness. he saw a man pointing a rifle towards the President at the moment of the shooting from the SN.

And do I disagree with you? Did I say he was not credible? But whatever you say, chief, you're the one who seems to think he has all the answers.

[Dan O'meara]

So I scrutinised your hypothesis and found a glaring weakness - that there's zero evidence to back this hypothesis up.

That's not a weakness. It's a given for a hypothesis. By your criteria every hypothesis ever made needs to be dismissed instantly, just because there is no evidence to support it yet.

The first question that needs to answer in a hypothesis is; is there a circumstance that makes it an impossibility? The answer for my hypothesis is; no, there isn't. It is not impossible that the man seen in the window was a decoy, nor is it impossible that shots were actually fired from the Dal-Tex building. The next question would have to be; can credible evidence be found to support the hypothesis. In this case we never got to that point because you dismissed it instantly, probably to protect your own pet theory.

My bad.
What's the evidence for shots from the Dal-Tex?

[Martin Weidmann]

My bad.
What's the evidence for shots from the Dal-Tex?

Let's start with this;

https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbrading.htm

Is this guy being there, just making a phone call, a mere coincidence?

[Dan O'meara]

Let's start with this;

https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbrading.htm

Is this guy being there, just making a phone call, a mere coincidence?

I'll try again, what evidence is there for shots from the Dal-Tex?

[Martin Weidmann]

I'll try again, what evidence is there for shots from the Dal-Tex?

What? Not even an "hey that can hardly be a coincidence" reply? Instead just an outright dismissal, again?

You still don't get it, do you now? If I already had the evidence it wouldn't be a hypothesis anymore, it would be a theory, like the one you're pushing.

Show me the documents about the search of the Dal-Tex building and all the FB 302 related to the Dal Tex and I'll tell you, ok?

In the meantime, the trajectory to the higher floors of the Dal-Tex building do not rule out shots being fired from there.

Now, it's my turn;

What evidence is there for Dougherty being the shooter?