If I Had Planned The Conspiracy ...

[Martin Weidmann]

Williams said that "everybody" was talking about going to the sixth floor, so antisocial Oswald who I doubt was part of "everybody" but was probably aware and keeping an eye on who was where would have been a priority.

Mr. BALL. You say you went back upstairs. Where did you go?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I went back up to the sixth floor.
Mr. BALL. Why did you go to the sixth floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, at the time everybody was talking like they was going to watch from the sixth floor. I think Billy Lovelady said he wanted to watch from up there. And also my friend; this Spanish boy, by the name of Danny Arce, we had agreed at first to come back up to the sixth floor. So I thought everybody was going to be on the sixth floor.

Brennan said that Oswald sat sideways on the window sill, obviously to check out what was happening in the crowd below.

Mr. BELIN. At the time you saw this man on the sixth floor, how much of the man could you see?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I could see at one time he came to the window and he sat sideways on the window sill. That was previous to President Kennedy getting there. And I could see practically his whole body, from his hips up. But at the time that he was firing the gun, a possibility from his belt up.

I can't find any reference to any employee saying that the main floor area was a "room", the first floor plan refers to this area as "Open Storage Space" and the definition of a room is and always will be an enclosed area within a building. This is about as silly as Oswald on TV agreeing that he was inside at the time but CT's claim that outside on the steps was technically inside.

If Oswald did indeed see the two men walk to the elevator and use the elevator then surely he would have said so, because even Oswald would know that the more information he gives makes a better alibi, but simply saying "possibly two negro employees walked through the room" can only mean he guessed since he didn't know if they used the stairs and Oswald based his guess on the limited info he had.

Bookhout: "Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in the lunch room of the Texas School Book Depository, alone, but recalled possibly two negro employees walking through the room in this period. He stated possibly one of these employees was called 'Junior' and the other was a short individual whose name he could not recall, but whom he would be able to recognize."

JohnM

If Oswald did indeed see the two men walk to the elevator and use the elevator then surely he would have said so, because even Oswald would know that the more information he gives makes a better alibi, but simply saying "possibly two negro employees walked through the room" can only mean he guessed since he didn't know if they used the stairs and Oswald based his guess on the limited info he had.

And there he goes again; Oswald didn't say what I, John Mytton, expect him to say, so what he said can't be true.

Never mind that Mytton hasn't got a clue about what Oswald actually said and is completely ignorant of the fact that the interrogators possibly didn't undertstand what he was saying (as they were not aware of the lay out of the 1st floor) and/or simply misrepresented what he said in their reports, written two weeks after the event.

[Lance Payette]

Dan, don’t be so hard on yourself. My experience is most everything is a mystery to you.

It is not surprising that you would choose the recollections of 160 earwitnesses who thought they heard something over the statements of 60 + eyewitnesses who related what they heard to what they saw.

Maybe it is best if you just realize you are pointing out the error made in the original WC Conclusion, where the commission made a faulty assumption of three shells meant three shots and pointed the investigation down the wrong path. A path you are still on.

Warren Commission conclusion: 

“The consensus among the witnesses at the scene was that three shots were fired.332 However, some heard only two shots,333 while others testified that they heard four and perhaps as many as five or six shots.334 The difficulty of accurate perception of the sound of gunshots required careful scrutiny of all of this testimony regarding the number of shots. The firing of a bullet causes a number of noises: the muzzle blast, caused by the smashing of the hot gases which propel the bullet into the relatively stable air at the gun's muzzle; the noise of the bullet, caused by the shock wave built up ahead of the bullet's nose as it travels through the air; and the noise caused by the impact of the bullet on its target.335 Each noise can be quite sharp and may be perceived as a separate shot. The tall buildings in the area might have further distorted the sound.

The physical and other evidence examined by the Commission compels the conclusion that at least two shots were fired. As discussed previously, the nearly whole bullet discovered at Parkland Hospital and the two larger fragments found in the Presidential automobile, which were identified as coming from the assassination rifle, came from at least two separate bullets and possibly from three.336 The most convincing evidence relating to the number of shots was provided by the presence on the sixth floor of three spent cartridges which were demonstrated to have been fired by the same rifle that fired the bullets which caused the wounds. It is possible that the assassin carried an empty shell in the rifle and fired only two shots, with the witnesses hearing multiple noises made by the same shot. Soon after the three

Page 111

empty cartridges were found, officials at the scene decided that three shots were fired, and that conclusion was widely circulated by the press. The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired. Nevertheless, the preponderance of the evidence, in particular the three spent cartridges, led the Commission to conclude that there were three shots fired.”

 

You seriously cannot understand this simple concept? They simply came to wrong conclusion. They should have completely ignored the earwitness statements and focused on the eyewitness statement made immediately after the assassination. A completely different picture takes shape. They mention media influence as a problem.

A simple review of information. The large number of eyewitnesses around the car and the SN both said there was only two shots. Only two bullets recovered. Only, legitimately, time to have fired two shots. The only way to explain the wounds is two shots. One of three shells exhibited signs of having been dry fired. The FBI verified the chamber of the rifle left a mark on the shells. 

It is so obvious that two shots are the answer that it is simply frightening. What can be learned about your intelligence when you admit it is the answer but refuse to accept it? The only reason the WC said there was three shots is because there were three shells found. That is it.

Rabid Lone Nutter that I am, I'll have to admit I was impressed by the book postulating only two shots. It would also explain the dented shell - wasn't good for anything else (i.e., reloading), was used for dry firing, and was ejected when the bolt was worked to load the first live round. It would also suggest how much (i.e., not much) preparation and planning went into the assassination - the dry-firing shell was still in the gun when Oswald brought it into the TSBD.

I also think a statement by Lee Bowers doesn't get enough attention. From long experience in the tower, Bowers said construction noise from the area of the TSBD often sounded as though it were coming from the area of the overpass. My house happens to sit in its own little simulation of Dealey Plaza (really, that's why I bought it!  ). I was consistently blaming neighbors to my right (i.e., the Grassy Knoll, if you will) for their damn barking dogs and loud parties when in fact the culprits were neighbors to my left (the TSBD). It was quite uncanny. It took some effort by my wife to convince me I was wrong.

[Lance Payette]

sanity keeps intruding.

 
Good one.
When you come up with something a little better than "I know what Euins really meant to say" let me know.

That's the problem - for you. I am operating off of what Euins actually said. Much as CTers might wish otherwise, he did not say anything more than a
 "white spot" (initially) and then a "bald spot" on a head he couldn't describe with hair he couldn't describe. CTers would like to expand this into something more, a bald guy who could not possibly have been Oswald, but alas for you what Euins actually said is not at all inconsistent with Oswald - but is, of course, Rather Fatal to any theory that has no shots being fired from the 6th floor.

[Dan O'meara]

Thanks Dan, but the man in your photo would be leaning away from Euins.

Yeah, John...if you scrunch your eyes closed and think really, really hard, you might be able to imagine that his head is tilting the other way.
Great point, by the way, really insightful.

To use the scoped Carcano, you have to shoot it right handed and if Oswald wasn't planning to use the scope, he would have left it behind when he dismantled the rifle to fit his 36 inch rifle sack.

JohnM

The point your making stems from your assumption that it was Oswald using his rifle to take the shots and that he was planning to use the scope.
If you take Euins' testimony at face value, it is evidence suggesting that the shooter was left-handed.
For Euins to see the bald spot only when the shooter was tilting his head to look down the rifle, the shooter must be tilting his head to the left while he is shooting.
That is the logical conclusion one must draw from what Euins is saying.
Your counter argument is, basically, "well, that can't be right because Oswald was right-handed".

Or maybe you know what Euins really meant to say as well. It seems to be catching.
Who needs witness testimony when you already know what they should be saying.
Euins testimony indicates that the shooter was not Oswald.
The shooter had a bald spot on top of his head and tilted his head to the left when he was using the rifle.
It's just one more piece of evidence pointing to someone else being the shooter.

  Does this help?

[Michael Capasse]

That's the problem - for you. I am operating off of what Euins actually said. Much as CTers might wish otherwise, he did not say anything more than a
 "white spot" (initially) and then a "bald spot" on a head he couldn't describe with hair he couldn't describe. CTers would like to expand this into something more, a bald guy who could not possibly have been Oswald, but alas for you what Euins actually said is not at all inconsistent with Oswald - but is, of course, Rather Fatal to any theory that has no shots being fired from the 6th floor.

Mr. James Underwood
Assistant News Director TV and radio

"By that time there was one police officer there and he was a three-wheeled motorcycle officer and a little
colored boy whose last name I remember as Eunice."

Mr. BALL. Euins?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. It may have been Euins. It was difficult to understand when he said his name.
He was telling the motorcycle officer he had seen a colored man lean out of the window upstairs and he had a rifle.

He was telling this to the officer and the officer took him over and put him in a squad car. By that time, motorcycle
officers were arriving, homicide officers were arriving and I went over and asked this boy if he had seen someone with
a rifle and he said "Yes, sir."

I said, "Were they white or black?"
He said, "It was a colored man."

I said, "Are you sure it was a colored man?"
He said, "Yes, sir" and I asked him his name and the only thing I could understand was what I thought his name was Eunice.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Euins did what he was told. He did not challenge his own statements on the stand, and was afraid of getting in trouble.
But he was not going to let Spector, or anybody, tell him what he didn't see. He took a safe route.
He tells Spector it was a mistake, written down wrong when the officer took the affidavit. He meant a white spot on the man's head.
Even though he told reporter, James Underwood, he saw a "colored man"

"He said, "It was a colored man." I said, "Are you sure it was a colored man?" He said, "Yes, sir,""
And then did not put that in an affidavit. Was he not able to?

Arlen Spector is the questioning attorney
Mr. SPECTER Let me ask you about a couple of specific things here, Amos.In the statement you say here that he was a white man.
By reading the statement, does that refresh your memory as to whether he was a white man or not?

Mr. EUINS. No, sir; I told the man that I could see a white spot on his head, but I didn't actually say it was a white man.
I said I couldn't tell. But I saw a white spot in his head.

Mr. SPECTER. Your best recollection at this moment is you still don't know whether he was a white man or a Negro?
All you can say is that you saw a white spot on his head?

Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. Then, did you tell the people at the police station that he was a white man, or did they make a mistake when they wrote that down here?
Mr. EUINS. They must have made a mistake, because I told them I could see a white spot on his head.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I wonder what was discussed in pre interview before testimony. How was he coached to answer these questions?
Was he told, "We know there was no negro man with a gun, so you are obviously mistaken." End of story.
I can't find the date Euins testified, but by March '64, he had been warned:

National Guardian | March 21, 1964
"Dealey Plaza (DP) witness Amos Euins refused to speak with or take questions from the media because “a Secret Service man
said I'd be in real trouble if I talked."

[Dan O'meara]

Mr. James Underwood
Assistant News Director TV and radio

"By that time there was one police officer there and he was a three-wheeled motorcycle officer and a little
colored boy whose last name I remember as Eunice."

Mr. BALL. Euins?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. It may have been Euins. It was difficult to understand when he said his name.
He was telling the motorcycle officer he had seen a colored man lean out of the window upstairs and he had a rifle.

He was telling this to the officer and the officer took him over and put him in a squad car. By that time, motorcycle
officers were arriving, homicide officers were arriving and I went over and asked this boy if he had seen someone with
a rifle and he said "Yes, sir."

I said, "Were they white or black?"
He said, "It was a colored man."

I said, "Are you sure it was a colored man?"
He said, "Yes, sir" and I asked him his name and the only thing I could understand was what I thought his name was Eunice.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Euins did what he was told. He did not challenge his own statements on the stand, and was afraid of getting in trouble.
But he was not going to let Spector, or anybody, tell him what he didn't see. He took a safe route.
He tells Spector it was a mistake, written down wrong when the officer took the affidavit. He meant a white spot on the man's head.
Even though he told reporter, James Underwood, he saw a "colored man"

"He said, "It was a colored man." I said, "Are you sure it was a colored man?" He said, "Yes, sir,""
And then did not put that in an affidavit. Was he not able to?

Arlen Spector is the questioning attorney
Mr. SPECTER Let me ask you about a couple of specific things here, Amos.In the statement you say here that he was a white man.
By reading the statement, does that refresh your memory as to whether he was a white man or not?

Mr. EUINS. No, sir; I told the man that I could see a white spot on his head, but I didn't actually say it was a white man.
I said I couldn't tell. But I saw a white spot in his head.

Mr. SPECTER. Your best recollection at this moment is you still don't know whether he was a white man or a Negro?
All you can say is that you saw a white spot on his head?

Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. Then, did you tell the people at the police station that he was a white man, or did they make a mistake when they wrote that down here?
Mr. EUINS. They must have made a mistake, because I told them I could see a white spot on his head.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I wonder what was discussed in pre interview before testimony. How was he coached to answer these questions?
Was he told, "We know there was no negro man with a gun, so you are obviously mistaken." End of story.
I can't find the date Euins testified, but by March '64, he had been warned:

National Guardian | March 21, 1964
Dealey Plaza (DP) witness Amos Euins refused to speak with or take questions from the media because “a Secret Service man
said I'd be in real trouble if I talked.

Euins testified on March 10, '64.

[Dan O'meara]

That's the problem - for you. I am operating off of what Euins actually said. Much as CTers might wish otherwise, he did not say anything more than a
 "white spot" (initially) and then a "bald spot" on a head he couldn't describe with hair he couldn't describe. CTers would like to expand this into something more, a bald guy who could not possibly have been Oswald, but alas for you what Euins actually said is not at all inconsistent with Oswald - but is, of course, Rather Fatal to any theory that has no shots being fired from the 6th floor.

"any theory that has no shots being fired from the 6th floor."

 
What on earth are you talking about now??
Take a breath and engage your brain.
You're falling apart in front of the whole forum.

"...what Euins actually said is not at all inconsistent with Oswald"

Apart from the distinctive bald spot on top of his head that Oswald didn't have and that he appeared to be a left-handed shooter...other than that "not at all inconsistent with Oswald".
  Oh, brother.