The Sign of a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory

[John Iacoletti]

Only Dan O’meara has attempted this. Sometimes he puts forth four names, At other times seven names. But provides no information on obvious flaws in his argument. For instance, if Oswald was not part of this conspiracy, how did these 4 or 7 get ahold of Oswald’s rifle to plant it?

What makes you think it's "Oswald's rifle"?

How did they make it appear that Oswald likely murdered Officer Tippit?

That doesn't "appear likely".

[Dan O'meara]

Only Dan O’meara has attempted this. Sometimes he puts forth four names, At other times seven names. But provides no information on obvious flaws in his argument. For instance, if Oswald was not part of this conspiracy, how did these 4 or 7 get ahold of Oswald’s rifle to plant it? How did they make it appear that Oswald likely murdered Officer Tippit? In any case, the vast majority of JFK CTers don’t believe in a conspiracy that is this small.

Hi Joe, I know this is a discussion you're having with Martin but I'd just like to quickly jump in as, whether you know it or not, you are completely misrepresenting some of the points I've been making.

"Sometimes he puts forth four names, At other times seven names."

In Reply #37 of this thread you made exactly the same point, implying that I'm not quite sure as to how many people I believe were involved in my own theory. I clarified this point for you when I replied:

"The list of four - Truly, Shelley, Fritz and Dougherty - are those who had foreknowledge of events that day.
The list of seven - Shelley, Lovelady, Williams, Norman, Jarman, Dougherty, Givens - are those who clearly lied to the investigating authorities. Williams, Norman and Jarman did not lie because they were part of the conspiracy they lied because Williams saw something he shouldn't have seen. Williams tried to distance himself from it and dragged Norman and Jarman into his lie as back up."

4 men who had foreknowledge of the assassination that day.

7 men who lied to the investigating authorities.

You shouldn't have been confused in the first place, it just revealed you hadn't read my posts properly but posting this again, after I'd already clarified it for you, smacks of something more than just basic confusion.

"But provides no information on obvious flaws in his argument."

Again, this shows you have not read my posts on this subject yet you feel you can comment on them. When I first laid out my basic theory I also laid out what I believe to be it's greatest flaw. A flaw I described as "insurmountable":

"The biggest stumbling block to this way of looking at things - and at the moment it looks insurmountable - is the organisation of the motorcade route.
I don't have the first clue how something like this could've possibly taken place through Byrd and his Oil buddies."

It is important to be honest with yourself when trying to propose a theory. I gladly welcome reasoned scrutiny and compelling counter-arguments. It is also important that I lay out the flaws with any theory I'm proposing as I have done with this one. As far as I'm aware it is a completely unique approach on this forum.

"For instance, if Oswald was not part of this conspiracy, how did these 4 or 7 get a hold of Oswald’s rifle to plant it?"

Again, you have clearly not read my posts on this subject. When outlining my theory I wrote:

"Oswald definitely knew something serious was going to happen that day but as to the full extent, I can't say. It's enough to say that when he left the TSBD after the assassination, he was a man on the run."

Oswald was involved in something that day but I don't believe he knew it was going to be the assassination of the President. And why should he know when he is being set-up as a patsy.
He is a foot soldier, taking orders, most probably answering to Shelley.
He wouldn't have been asked to provide a rifle, he would have been told to provide one.

"How did they make it appear that Oswald likely murdered Officer Tippit?"

If you aware of my posts on this subject you would know I favour a scenario in which Oswald killed Tippit.
He was a man on the run and he was armed.

"In any case, the vast majority of JFK CTers don’t believe in a conspiracy that is this small."

Most CTers are nut-jobs propping up their tiny egos at the expense of the truth.
Unfortunately, I'm getting the creeping feeling some LNers are in the same camp.

[Bill Chapman]

Well, that sounds like a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy to murder JFK and make it look like it was Oswald alone. To convince me otherwise you have to provide a list of all the subtasks that was accomplished:

* Set up the murder of JFK.
* Set up the murder of Officer Tippit.
* Create CE-399 and swap it out.
* Remove frames from the Zapruder film.
Etc.

And an estimate of the number of people needed to accomplish all this. And what positions these people held, as Dallas Policemen, FBI agents, doctors, etc.

Anyone who presents a secret conspiracy theory has to make a case that they are arguing for a Small-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory, and not for a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory. They one thing that Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theorists all have in common is that they skip this step. The:

* Elders of Zion Conspiracy Theory
* Illuminati Conspiracy Theory
* Fake Apollo Moon Landing Conspiracy Theory
* JFK Conspiracy Theory
* Stolen 2020 Election Conspiracy Theory

All have this in common with each other. Skeptics have rejected all these conspiracy theories for over two hundred years, using the same solid reasoning. That keeping a large conspiracy a secret for years is way too remotely unlikely to be considered seriously.

It is incumbent on a conspiracy theorist to argue clearly that their conspiracy theory does not belong on this list.

You have not done this.

Only Dan O’meara has attempted this. Sometimes he puts forth four names, At other times seven names. But provides no information on obvious flaws in his argument. For instance, if Oswald was not part of this conspiracy, how did these 4 or 7 get ahold of Oswald’s rifle to plant it? How did they make it appear that Oswald likely murdered Officer Tippit? In any case, the vast majority of JFK CTers don’t believe in a conspiracy that is this small.



How many men looked at the original bullet found at Parkland before CE-399 was swapped in? How many could have made a photograph of this original bullet. How many would have to keep silent about this?



I can rule that out.

When the limousine is moving at 8 mph, it advances down the road, with each frame interval, about 8 inches. When moving at 13 mph, it advances down the road, with each frame interval, about 13 inches. With maximum acceleration, or maximum braking, the limousine can only change it’s speed by about 0.5 or perhaps 1 mph within one frame interval. To change it’s speed by 1 mph within one Zapruder frame interval would require almost one G of force which I am confident is the maximum that limousine could do without running into a thick brick wall.

So, if the limousine was cruising along at 10 mph, you would see the limousine advance down the road by:

z 140:
          10 inches
z 141:
          another 10 inches
z 142:
          another 10 inches
z 143:
          another 10 inches
z 144:

Remove a single frame and you instead see the limousine advance:

z 140:
          10 inches
z 141:
          20 inches
z 142:
          10 inches
z 143:

There would appear to be an interval where the limousine seemed to, miraculously accelerate from 10 mph to 20 mph and then just as abruptly slow to 10 mph. An amount of acceleration or deceleration requiring about 8 Gs of force. Absolutely impossible for the limousine to achieve.

I have carefully looked at many Zapruder frames and have found nothing like that. I have not checked every frame interval but that is the burden of those who support the “Zapruder frame removal” theory, not mine.

It is amazing to me that after over 50 years, CTers still commonly assert that maybe a Zapruder fame could have been removed. If that was so, it would be easy to demonstrate that. I suspect that 100 years after the assassination, CTers will still continue to assert this.

----------------
It was Oswald
All four of him
----------------
1) The little scumbag himself
2) Alek Hidell
3) O.H. Lee
4) Dirty Harvey

In the meantime:

[Martin Weidmann]

Well, that sounds like a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy to murder JFK and make it look like it was Oswald alone. To convince me otherwise you have to provide a list of all the subtasks that was accomplished:

* Set up the murder of JFK.
* Set up the murder of Officer Tippit.
* Create CE-399 and swap it out.
* Remove frames from the Zapruder film.
Etc.

And an estimate of the number of people needed to accomplish all this. And what positions these people held, as Dallas Policemen, FBI agents, doctors, etc.

Anyone who presents a secret conspiracy theory has to make a case that they are arguing for a Small-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory, and not for a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory. They one thing that Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theorists all have in common is that they skip this step. The:

* Elders of Zion Conspiracy Theory
* Illuminati Conspiracy Theory
* Fake Apollo Moon Landing Conspiracy Theory
* JFK Conspiracy Theory
* Stolen 2020 Election Conspiracy Theory

All have this in common with each other. Skeptics have rejected all these conspiracy theories for over two hundred years, using the same solid reasoning. That keeping a large conspiracy a secret for years is way too remotely unlikely to be considered seriously.

It is incumbent on a conspiracy theorist to argue clearly that their conspiracy theory does not belong on this list.

You have not done this.

Only Dan O’meara has attempted this. Sometimes he puts forth four names, At other times seven names. But provides no information on obvious flaws in his argument. For instance, if Oswald was not part of this conspiracy, how did these 4 or 7 get ahold of Oswald’s rifle to plant it? How did they make it appear that Oswald likely murdered Officer Tippit? In any case, the vast majority of JFK CTers don’t believe in a conspiracy that is this small.



How many men looked at the original bullet found at Parkland before CE-399 was swapped in? How many could have made a photograph of this original bullet. How many would have to keep silent about this?



I can rule that out.

When the limousine is moving at 8 mph, it advances down the road, with each frame interval, about 8 inches. When moving at 13 mph, it advances down the road, with each frame interval, about 13 inches. With maximum acceleration, or maximum braking, the limousine can only change it’s speed by about 0.5 or perhaps 1 mph within one frame interval. To change it’s speed by 1 mph within one Zapruder frame interval would require almost one G of force which I am confident is the maximum that limousine could do without running into a thick brick wall.

So, if the limousine was cruising along at 10 mph, you would see the limousine advance down the road by:

z 140:
          10 inches
z 141:
          another 10 inches
z 142:
          another 10 inches
z 143:
          another 10 inches
z 144:

Remove a single frame and you instead see the limousine advance:

z 140:
          10 inches
z 141:
          20 inches
z 142:
          10 inches
z 143:

There would appear to be an interval where the limousine seemed to, miraculously accelerate from 10 mph to 20 mph and then just as abruptly slow to 10 mph. An amount of acceleration or deceleration requiring about 8 Gs of force. Absolutely impossible for the limousine to achieve.

I have carefully looked at many Zapruder frames and have found nothing like that. I have not checked every frame interval but that is the burden of those who support the “Zapruder frame removal” theory, not mine.

It is amazing to me that after over 50 years, CTers still commonly assert that maybe a Zapruder fame could have been removed. If that was so, it would be easy to demonstrate that. I suspect that 100 years after the assassination, CTers will still continue to assert this.

To convince me otherwise you have to provide a list of all the subtasks that was accomplished

With all due respect, Joe, you are basically asking me to write a book. I have no intention of trying to convince you of anything as it would require substantial effort and time on my part and our previous encounters have shown that it is near impossible to convince you of anything anyway. Besides, I wouldn't even know how to begin convincing you, or anybody, else when I loads of questions myself about what actually happened.

But I would be interested in learning from you why you believe the murder of Tippit was pre-planned?

And what makes you think anything to do with CE399 was pre-planned?

if Oswald was not part of this conspiracy, how did these 4 or 7 get ahold of Oswald’s rifle to plant it?

What makes you so sure that the rifle found at the TSBD was actually ever owned by Oswald?

How many men looked at the original bullet found at Parkland before CE-399 was swapped in? How many could have made a photograph of this original bullet. How many would have to keep silent about this?

There were three men in Parkland who handled the bullet; Tomlinson, who found it, Wright, who received it from Tomlinson, and SA Johnsen who put it in his pocket and took it to Washington. The chances that anybody would have made a photograph of that bullet are nil. I'm not even sure why you would bring it up, as no photograph has ever surfaced and the whole notion is so far fetched, because who would even come up with idea to photograph that bullet. The bullet was found in a restricted area, guarded by law enforcement officers and, when he found it, Tomlinson instantly went to Wright, who kept it on his person until he could find an agent who would take it, which in this case was Johnson.

And nobody would have to keep silent about this, because none of the men saw the bullet again and none of them had any reason to assume a swap had taken place.

Remarkably, however, one of the three men did not remain silent. In an interview in 1966, O.P. Wright told Jeremiah Thompson that the bullet he had seen had a pointed tip. During a follow up interview in 1967, Wright was shown photographs of CE399, CE572 and CE606 and he rejected them all as resembling the bullet he received from Tomlinson. Even more remarkably, when the WC took testimony from Tomlinson, they failed to show him CE399 for identification. Now why was that, do you think?

[Dan O'meara]

But I find it difficult to imagine a scenario in which someone was innocently pointing a rifle from the SN window at the President at exactly the same time he was shot.

Agreed, if that's what happened.

It is a fact three clearly audible shots rang out that day. Over 160 witnesses can't be wrong about that.

You may be right, but it's a fallacious argument. An appeal to majority isn't always correct. Besides, if I remember correctly, there were also witnesses who claimed to have heard more shots, who were ignored or simply told they were wrong. Dealey Plaza is often described as an echo chamber. 

According to Pat Speer's comprehensive list of witnesses who reported on the shots over 75% of the 200+ witnesses reported 3 audible shots. Of course there were others who reported different amounts of shots but 160+ witnesses reporting the same thing is convincing enough for me.
However, I should not have described it as a "fact" that there were 3 clearly audible shots, it is not.

The shells were seen in situ by a those officers on the 6th floor at the time of the discovery of the SN. Found at the same window a man was seen pointing a rifle towards the President at the exact moment he was shot.

Sounds convincing, I agree and yet I am not so confident this is was happened. The only person, if my memory serves, who actually claimed to see a man pointing a rifle when the shots rang out was Brennan and his account of what happened has not be consitent, to say the least. For one, he claimed to have looked up when the shots rang out, but there is photographic evidence that shows him looking at the motorcade. He also changed the position where he was sitting on the wall that day.
Euins was an impressionable young kid back then, who ducked away behind a wall when he heard the shots. I seriously doubt he actually saw any shots being fired.

I'm a bit confused here. I described the discovery of the shells by the first officers at the SN but you counter it by dismissing Brennan and Euins.
This brings me to another point, both Brennan and Euins describe a man pointing a rifle towards the President at the moment of the shooting. It is independently corroborating evidence of a very specific point. You dismiss it by individually implying Brennan is a flake and Euins is just a kid, so the fact they both independently described a man pointing a rifle towards the President from the TSBD at the moment of the shooting miraculously disappears. I'm not convinced by this approach.

my "narrative" method, rather than just treating this as an isolated detail, would look to other evidence to see if we can decide whether the trajectory of the shots was coming from the TSBD or the Dal-Tex.
So we could say something like - "Oh look, witnesses saw a man pointing a rifle towards the President at the moment of the shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD but nobody saw anybody pointing anything from the Dal-Tex."
In this scenario, the trajectory information would be used to strengthen the case for the shots coming from the TSBD.

You do understand this is circular logic, right?

Somebody saw a man in the window of the TSBD with a rifle, so the trajectory of the shots must be coming from the TSBD.
As the trajectory of the shots came from the TSBD the witness must have seen a man in the window of the TSBD with a rifle.

You've misunderstood my meaning.
In the example I gave, the bullet trajectory can be traced to a general area including the TSBD and the Dal-Tex. So how do we choose between these two locations? My solution is to look at other evidence, such as witnesses seeing a man in the TSBD pointing a rifle towards the President at the moment of the shooting from the window where three shells were found.
On the other hand, no-one saw anyone pointing anything at anyone from the Dal-Tex and no shells were found there.
In this scenario the trajectory information favours the TSBD as the location from which the assassin fired.

If the murder of Kennedy was a conspiracy, there are various ways (one more risky than the other) to get the rifle and shells in situ without there ever having been a shot fired from the TSBD. Let me give you one scenario. In the moments directly after the shots there was absolute mayhem and confusion.

Dorothy Garner told Barry Ernest;
"It was total confusion," she said.  "The Dallas police, FBI, Secret Service were coming up the stairs, in the elevators, in all the
offices.  The news media and workers and outsiders were going everywhere."

Now, let's say, as a hypothesis, one of the first men into the building was part of the conspiracy and it was his job to take the rifle from it's original hiding place (where it was possibly left during the night prior of the murder) and plant it, as well as three shells, on the 6th floor. If I remember correctly, the sniper's nest wasn't found instantly, so there would have been plenty of time and opportunity to actually plant those items while pretending to be looking.

You may call it far-fetched but I don't think it is and I can tell you why. If there was a shooter on the 6th floor, then where did he go? I am convinced by now that the "Oswald on the stairs" story is not plausible or credible, predominantly because Dorothy Garner would have seen him, or anybody else, coming down on the stairs from the 5th floor and she didn't. The WC did their best to put Oswald on the stairs anyway, but they did so by dismissing the account of Victoria Adams, not interviewing the other girls and ignoring Garner's comment to Martha Stroud. In fact, the whole thing was circular logic at it's best; Oswald was the shooter and Baker saw him 90 seconds after the shots in the 2nd floor lunchroom, so he must have come down the stairs.

The rifle and shells being planted during the first minutes of the chaos would explain why no shooter was ever found on the 6th floor. I know, the hypothesis does not match the accepted narrative in any shape or form, but, looking beyond the narrative, it is a possibility nevertheless. Of course, there is no evidence for it, but there also isn't any evidence for Oswald having been on the 6th floor and running down the stairs at around 12:30.

"If there was a shooter on the 6th floor, then where did he go?"

This seems to be a key point underpinning your proposed scenario. In the model I'm proposing the shooter is Jack Dougherty. He stays on the 6th floor until Truly, a co-conspirator, has steered Baker up to the roof, avoiding the 6th floor. Dougherty is then seen on the 5th floor going about his business.
There is no need for anything as complex as the scenario you are proposing.

[Martin Weidmann]

According to Pat Speer's comprehensive list of witnesses who reported on the shots over 75% of the 200+ witnesses reported 3 audible shots. Of course there were others who reported different amounts of shots but 160+ witnesses reporting the same thing is convincing enough for me.
However, I should not have described it as a "fact" that there were 3 clearly audible shots, it is not.

Unfortunately, not much can be considered a fact in this case.

I'm a bit confused here. I described the discovery of the shells by the first officers at the SN but you counter it by dismissing Brennan and Euins.
This brings me to another point, both Brennan and Euins describe a man pointing a rifle towards the President at the moment of the shooting. It is independently corroborating evidence of a very specific point. You dismiss it by individually implying Brennan is a flake and Euins is just a kid, so the fact they both independently described a man pointing a rifle towards the President from the TSBD at the moment of the shooting miraculously disappears. I'm not convinced by this approach.

About the shells being seen in situ by officers when the sniper's nest was discovered, there isn't much for me to say. You are basically stating a fact. Of course there will be people who saw the shells in situ, because they were there at some point in time. Far more interesting for me would be how and when they got there. You refered to the same window where a man was seen pointing a rifle. IMO you could only have been talking about Brennan, because I don't believe Euins saw anything, at least not prior to the shooting, and when the shots were fired he ducked behind a wall. And btw I am not dismissing Brennan or Euins. I'm just pointing out that you can not always take everything a witness says at face value.

Brennan simply might not be a credible witness for known reasons an the Euins told different stories as well. In his testimony he said he saw a pipe, in a TV interview he said nothing about that pipe but instead said that he ducked behind a wall as soon as he heard the shots. In yet another interview he said he brought a camera and actually took pictures of the TSBD but somehow the camera disappeared and he could not explain how. Is their testimony invalid? No, but it isn't rock solid either.

You've misunderstood my meaning.
In the example I gave, the bullet trajectory can be traced to a general area including the TSBD and the Dal-Tex. So how do we choose between these two locations? My solution is to look at other evidence, such as witnesses seeing a man in the TSBD pointing a rifle towards the President at the moment of the shooting from the window where three shells were found.
On the other hand, no-one saw anyone pointing anything at anyone from the Dal-Tex and no shells were found there.
In this scenario the trajectory information favours the TSBD as the location from which the assassin fired.

All your conclusions about where the shots came from seems to hang, for the biggest part, on the statements of Brennan and Euins and the shells being found at the sniper's nest. Was the Dal-Tex building ever searched? If this was a professional hit, which in a conspiracy against POTUS it most likely would have to, misdirection might play a big part. What if the man Brennan and Euins saw in the window was there for exactly that purpose and left the 6th floor as soon as the motorcade turned onto Houston. That would explain why nobody was found on the 6th floor or seen on the stairs, wouldn't it?

I've said this before; all we really know has been filtered by the FBI and WC. We have no way of knowing if the information is accurate or complete. The less confident I get about the WC findings, the more likely it seems to me that we do not know everything. What if the 6th floor crime scene was staged? What would that leave you with? Two witnesses out of several hundered people who, over time, gave different accounts about what happened. And that, to me, seems a bit thin to base a string of conclusions on.

"If there was a shooter on the 6th floor, then where did he go?"

This seems to be a key point underpinning your proposed scenario. In the model I'm proposing the shooter is Jack Dougherty. He stays on the 6th floor until Truly, a co-conspirator, has steered Baker up to the roof, avoiding the 6th floor. Dougherty is then seen on the 5th floor going about his business.
There is no need for anything as complex as the scenario you are proposing.

Right, so Dougherty would basically be hiding in plain sight? It certainly would explain why Dorothy Garner saw nobody coming down the stairs within 90 seconds after the shots and it can't be dismissed as a possibility. Having said that, the scenario I proposed is in many ways not really much different. All you need is a conspirator, acting as a law enforcement officer or maybe even being one, running up to the 6th floor, leaving the rifle next to the stairs and throwning three shells in the pre-prepared "sniper's nest". There is nothing complex about that.

[Dan O'meara]

According to Pat Speer's comprehensive list of witnesses who reported on the shots over 75% of the 200+ witnesses reported 3 audible shots. Of course there were others who reported different amounts of shots but 160+ witnesses reporting the same thing is convincing enough for me.
However, I should not have described it as a "fact" that there were 3 clearly audible shots, it is not.

Unfortunately, not much can be considered a fact in this case.

Agreed. That is why I think theories/models/narratives are important.
There is so much that is contradictory and misleading in this case that it will be impossible to come up with a model that doesn't have holes in it (the LNer model included). The model that has the least holes wins. That, I believe, is the best we can do.

About the shells being seen in situ by officers when the sniper's nest was discovered, there isn't much for me to say. You are basically stating a fact. Of course there will be people who saw the shells in situ, because they were there at some point in time. Far more interesting for me would be how and when they got there. You refered to the same window where a man was seen pointing a rifle. IMO you could only have been talking about Brennan, because I don't believe Euins saw anything, at least not prior to the shooting, and when the shots were fired he ducked behind a wall. And btw I am not dismissing Brennan or Euins. I'm just pointing out that you can not always take everything a witness says at face value.

Euins specifically testifies to seeing a man pointing a rifle out of the window. It must be remembered that Harkness radios in he has a witness (Euins) claiming the shooter was in the TSBD within a few minutes of the shooting. This makes Euins credible as far as I'm concerned.
As for the shells, if the three shots were fired from the window Brennan and Euins saw a man with a rifle pointing towards the President at the time of the shooting, then the shells came from the rifle - probably.
Whether they were the same shells Studebaker photographed is open to debate as there is good witness testimony that, at some point, all the original shells were in Fritz's pocket before they were photographed. Not to mention the one in the clip Fritz took away with him.

Brennan simply might not be a credible witness for known reasons an the Euins told different stories as well. In his testimony he said he saw a pipe, in a TV interview he said nothing about that pipe but instead said that he ducked behind a wall as soon as he heard the shots. In yet another interview he said he brought a camera and actually took pictures of the TSBD but somehow the camera disappeared and he could not explain how. Is their testimony invalid? No, but it isn't rock solid either.

The key to the credibility of these witnesses is the DPD tapes. Whatever they said afterwards is one thing, but minutes after the shooting they were telling police officers about the man with the rifle (as was Rowland). These reports generated calls over the police radio.

All your conclusions about where the shots came from seems to hang, for the biggest part, on the statements of Brennan and Euins and the shells being found at the sniper's nest. Was the Dal-Tex building ever searched? If this was a professional hit, which in a conspiracy against POTUS it most likely would have to, misdirection might play a big part. What if the man Brennan and Euins saw in the window was there for exactly that purpose and left the 6th floor as soon as the motorcade turned onto Houston. That would explain why nobody was found on the 6th floor or seen on the stairs, wouldn't it?

I disagree that it was a professional hit.

As for the man with the rifle being a decoy, we are now getting into "maybe Brennan and Euins were CIA assets" territory. This sort of conjecture the bread and butter of the lunatic fringe (I'm not placing you in this category, I'm just making a point).

I've said this before; all we really know had been filtered by the FBI and WC. We have no way of knowing if the information is accurate or complete. The less confident I get about the WC findings, the more likely it seems to me that we do not know everything. What if the 6th floor crime scene was staged? What would that leave you with? Two witnesses out of several hundered people who, over time, gave different accounts about what happened. And that, to me, seems a bit thin to base a string of conclusions on.

It would be a bit thin if that's all it was.
Rowland reports seeing a man with a rifle on the 6th floor.
Carolyn Walther saw a man pointing a rifle of of a TSBD window but she wasn't sure which window.
Ronald Fischer saw a man in the 6th floor window but didn't see the rifle.
Robert Edwards saw the same man in the SN window surrounded by boxes.
Mrs Earle Cabell, Malcolm Couch, James Worrell and Bob Jackson describe a rifle projecting out from a TSBD window (Cabell describes it as a projection)

Some TSBD employees report the shots as coming from inside the building.

As discussed, three shells were seen by the first officers to discover the SN.

The bullet/wound trajectories are consistent with a shot from the TSBD

The majority of witnesses in the motorcade describe the shots as coming from over their right shoulders - also consistent with a shot from the TSBD.

The DPD tapes reveal witnesses identifying the TSBD within a few minutes of the assassination.

I am unaware of any credible evidence the three clearly audible shots came from anywhere else. Although each point can be isolated and argued into the ground, for me, personally, I find the probability that the SN was the location from which the shots were taken enough to be taken very seriously.

Right, so Dougherty would basically be hiding in plain sight? It certainly would explain why Dorothy Garner saw nobody coming down the stairs within 90 seconds after the shots and it can't be dismissed as a possibility. Having said that, the scenario I proposed is in many ways not really much different. All you need is a conspirator, acting as a law enforcement officer or maybe even being one, running up to the 6th floor, leaving the rifle next to the stairs and throwning three shells in the pre-prepared "sniper's nest". There is nothing complex about that.

Would your conspirator not be seen by Adams or Styles or Baker or Garner or Williams/Jarman/Norman?
My proposal avoids this unnecessary complication.

[Martin Weidmann]

Agreed. That is why I think theories/models/narratives are important.
There is so much that is contradictory and misleading in this case that it will be impossible to come up with a model that doesn't have holes in it (the LNer model included). The model that has the least holes wins. That, I believe, is the best we can do.

Euins specifically testifies to seeing a man pointing a rifle out of the window. It must be remembered that Harkness radios in he has a witness (Euins) claiming the shooter was in the TSBD within a few minutes of the shooting. This makes Euins credible as far as I'm concerned.
As for the shells, if the three shots were fired from the window Brennan and Euins saw a man with a rifle pointing towards the President at the time of the shooting, then the shells came from the rifle - probably.
Whether they were the same shells Studebaker photographed is open to debate as there is good witness testimony that, at some point, all the original shells were in Fritz's pocket before they were photographed. Not to mention the one in the clip Fritz took away with him.

The key to the credibility of these witnesses is the DPD tapes. Whatever they said afterwards is one thing, but minutes after the shooting they were telling police officers about the man with the rifle (as was Rowland). These reports generated calls over the police radio.

I disagree that it was a professional hit.

As for the man with the rifle being a decoy, we are now getting into "maybe Brennan and Euins were CIA assets" territory. This sort of conjecture the bread and butter of the lunatic fringe (I'm not placing you in this category, I'm just making a point).

It would be a bit thin if that's all it was.
Rowland reports seeing a man with a rifle on the 6th floor.
Carolyn Walther saw a man pointing a rifle of of a TSBD window but she wasn't sure which window.
Ronald Fischer saw a man in the 6th floor window but didn't see the rifle.
Robert Edwards saw the same man in the SN window surrounded by boxes.
Mrs Earle Cabell, Malcolm Couch, James Worrell and Bob Jackson describe a rifle projecting out from a TSBD window (Cabell describes it as a projection)

Some TSBD employees report the shots as coming from inside the building.

As discussed, three shells were seen by the first officers to discover the SN.

The bullet/wound trajectories are consistent with a shot from the TSBD

The majority of witnesses in the motorcade describe the shots as coming from over their right shoulders - also consistent with a shot from the TSBD.

The DPD tapes reveal witnesses identifying the TSBD within a few minutes of the assassination.

I am unaware of any credible evidence the three clearly audible shots came from anywhere else. Although each point can be isolated and argued into the ground, for me, personally, I find the probability that the SN was the location from which the shots were taken enough to be taken very seriously.

Would your conspirator not be seen by Adams or Styles or Baker or Garner or Williams/Jarman/Norman?
My proposal avoids this unnecessary complication.

Euins specifically testifies to seeing a man pointing a rifle out of the window. It must be remembered that Harkness radios in he has a witness (Euins) claiming the shooter was in the TSBD within a few minutes of the shooting. This makes Euins credible as far as I'm concerned.

Hang on, I never said Euins wasn't credible. I just wonder what he really saw, given the fact that he changed his story over time. It's pretty obvious that he instantly realized the shooter was inside the TSBD and told a cop. I deliberately use the word "realized" because concluding the shooter was inside the building is not the same as seeing a man with a rifle at a particular 6th floor window. I would have agreed with you that Euins was a witness that could be relied upon, if he had been more specific about the location inside the building to the officer.

As for the shells, if the three shots were fired from the window Brennan and Euins saw a man with a rifle pointing towards the President at the time of the shooting, then the shells came from the rifle - probably.
Whether they were the same shells Studebaker photographed is open to debate as there is good witness testimony that, at some point, all the original shells were in Fritz's pocket before they were photographed. Not to mention the one in the clip Fritz took away with him.

If the three shots were fired from that window, a logical and fair conclusion would indeed be that the shells they found probably came from the rifle. Fritz contaminating the crime scene is something I will never understand. He should have known better, even by the standard of that day. It seems to me there are way too many instances of strange things happening involving the physical evidence, that you simple can not put it all down to incompetence.

The key to the credibility of these witnesses is the DPD tapes. Whatever they said afterwards is one thing, but minutes after the shooting they were telling police officers about the man with the rifle (as was Rowland). These reports generated calls over the police radio.

And yet, the WC went with Brennan and Euins and did everything they could to discredit Rowland.

I disagree that it was a professional hit.

Well that settles that then, right? Btw I never suggested it was a profession hit. The word If at the beginning is the give away.

As for the man with the rifle being a decoy, we are now getting into "maybe Brennan and Euins were CIA assets" territory. This sort of conjecture the bread and butter of the lunatic fringe (I'm not placing you in this category, I'm just making a point).

I would never claim Brennan and Euins were CIA assets, but if you want the dismiss a possible suggestion just because you don't think it's likely or possible (which btw a lot of LNs frequently also do) that a decoy was used in a misdirection operation to draw attention away from the real shooters, than that's fine. You've already said that you don't think it was a professional hit, so this goes out of the window as well, right?

But here's something to ponder; what if Dougherty was in fact the decoy and not the shooter? Just think about for a second. He works there and if they test him he would come back negative on powder residue...

I am unaware of any credible evidence the three clearly audible shots came from anywhere else. Although each point can be isolated and argued into the ground, for me, personally, I find the probability that the SN was the location from which the shots were taken enough to be taken very seriously.

Fair enough. For me it certainly is a possibility as well, but I remain skeptical. Why would a gun man place himself on the 6th floor with only one way to escape? It hardly makes sense to me. IMO something else must have been going on.

Would your conspirator not be seen by Adams or Styles or Baker or Garner or Williams/Jarman/Norman?
My proposal avoids this unnecessary complication.

Yes and no. He might be seen, but would he be noticed with all sorts of law enforcement people rushing into the building with rifles making their way to the higher up floors? A good way to hide, is in a crowd, isn't it? Btw you did notice it was a a hypothesis?