If I Had Planned The Conspiracy ...

[Jack Nessan]

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.

It really is that simple—two shots are all Oswald really fired. Through trajectory analysis two shots account for all the wounds on both JFK and JBC. The eyewitnesses verify that there were only two shots commencing around Z212.

The book Phantom Shot documented the two shot witnesses and two shot evidence. The FBI report presented to Rankin documented the fact CE 544 and CE545 had marks that originated from the chamber of the rifle that the FBI referred to as “chamber marks”. The final piece of information was provided by Josiah Thompson in his book Six Seconds in Dallas, pages 140 through 146 and in the footnotes on page 173. I always thought what was needed was to get the FBI to examine the rifle and determine the extent of the “chamber mark” and possibly photograph it. It turns out that Josiah Thompson as part of the Life Magazine photographing the shells in 1966-67 observed on the shells that the “chamber mark” was present on all the 30+ shells that had been fired in the rifle by the FBI and also included the unfired cartridge CE141. The one and only shell that did not have the “chamber mark” is the “dented shell” CE543. 

Of particular importance was the unfired cartridge CE141. It shows all that was needed to make the “chamber mark” was the chamber of the rifle to have been expanded due to the heat generated by the firing of the other two cartridges.

--------

I had a similar experience with sound on the farm. I was working by the shop and they would be target shooting or sighting in rifles 100 yards to the south east and you would have sworn the shots were coming from the west.

[Jack Nessan]

I'm happy for you, that you think you've proved the Warren Commission wrong.
Can you point me to the creator of this theory as I'd like to hear more about it.

I know you will never understand it. It just makes me laugh watching you fumble around.

[Lance Payette]

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.

The problem is, the very day of the JFKA Euins signed a Voluntary Statement saying it was a white man. He then explained to the WC on March 10, 1964, that the statement was in error because he had merely said he'd seen a white spot. If he was coached, as you suggest, why didn't he simply tell Specter "Yep, it was a white man who could well have been Oswald"? Consistent with what we find throughout the conspiracy narratives, Specter is an Evil Genius or Incompetent Fool as the CT narrative requires.

Underwood was allowed to testify for the WC on April 1, 1964, three weeks after Euins. Why wasn't he similarly coached or intimidated? Why was he allowed to testify at all? Why did the WC allow this discrepancy to see the late of day? Once again, we have the Evil Genius / Bumbling Idiot thing.

Euins' initial contact was with Officer D. V. Harkness, who testified for the WC on April 9, 1964. In neither his testimony nor his notes taken when speaking with Euins did he have Euins saying the shooter was a Negro - rather an astonishing omission if that is in fact what Euins said. At no time did Harkness suggest to his DPD compadres that the suspect they were seeking might be black. (Despite the clear record, it is a conspiracy factoid all over the internet that Harkness' notes have Euins saying the shooter was black and Belin "cutting him off" when Harkness attempted to say this. Gotta love those conspiracy factoids!)

Forrest Sorrels likewise told the WC on May 7, 1964 that he had interviewed Euins the day of the assassination and that Euins had been unable to say whether the shooter was white or black. In fact, nothing in any of the reports or testimony - other than Underwood's testimony - suggests Euins said anything about the shooter being black. See https://tangodown63.com/amos-euins-statements/.

So, we can rely on Euins, Harkness and Sorrels and chalk up Underwood's recollections to faulty memory and confusion (he thought the kid's name was Eunice), or we can speculate that Euins, Harkness and Sorrels were coached and intimidated and that Specter and his fellow WC attorneys were Rather Inept in failing to coach Euins into saying that by God the shooter was a white man a lot like Oswald (and in allowing Underwood's conflicting testimony to see the light of day).

It appears to me that feisty old Amos was still getting into trouble as recently as 2019 and may still be alive. Track him down and get back to us! Maybe he and Ruth Paine will hold a joint press conference and reveal The Truth at last.

[Lance Payette]

"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"

Again, I will leave to others to assess who is falling apart and making rather a spectacular ass of himself. This is, alas, the old "wrestling with a pig" thing. The pig - that would be you in this analogy - enjoys it.

What I was talking about - which I thought was rather clear - was any conspiracy theory that insists Oswald's rifle was merely planted on the 6th floor but no shots were fired from there.

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.

2-1/2" into the hairline - which was Specter's description, not Euins' - is not "on top of his head." Euins likewise said nothing about a "distinctive" bald spot. Even the CTers at Greg Parker's forum, who were light years ahead of you, were willing to suggest Euins may have been describing a shiny spot on the shooter's forehead. You'll have to refresh my memory - please do - as to where Euins described the shooter appearing to be lefthanded.

[John Mytton]

Baker's signature on the affidavit is written in a different style to the same name on the first line

We can leave Truly out of it for now as he wasn't there when Baker first entered the room.
So let me see if I'm getting this straight:
You've posted an actual handwritten version of Baker's affidavit . It reads -

"On the second or third floor, where the lunch room is located, I saw a man standing in the lunch room, drinking a coke. He was alone in the lunch room at this time."

"or third floor" has been crossed out so it reads "on the second floor, where the lunch room is located".
"drinking a coke" has been crossed out and not replaced with anything.
Both crossings out have been initialed by Baker.
Here we have Baker saying that he saw a man standing in the lunchroom, alone and drinking a coke.
Then the "drinking a coke" bit is crossed out and initialed by Baker.
This tallies with Oswald's reported statement that he had just purchased a coke when Baker came in the room.

Your argument against this is that the style of Baker's signature at the end of the affidavit is different from the way he's written his name at the bottom of the first page (it's also a different style to the way he's initialed the bits he's crossed out).
Can you please explain how that is an argument in any way.
Can you be more clear regarding what you're driving at.
Can't you recognise this as a potentially important piece of evidence or is it just an inconvenience you feel you need to shut down any way you can?

Hmmm...once again, what are you getting at?
That someone faked these affidavits? Is that the hole you're digging for yourself?
Remember, both affidavits were witnessed

Here's Truly's handwritten affidavit as compared to the document signed by Roy Truly, and the writing is exactly the same! -sarcasm-





Here is selected words taken from the original two documents and look closely at the way 22 November is written, same letters, same spacing within the words and same spacing between words. Btw I made these comparisons some time ago and I can't find the original page 1 of the Truly document but I got the Truly 22 November 1963 from that.

Remember, both affidavits were witnessed

So what? All that means is that a document that you approve was witnessed as it was being signed by you. And Baker clearly didn't approve of the coke reference so he crossed it out and initialled the correction.



JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Here's Truly's handwritten affidavit as compared to the document signed by Roy Truly, and the writing is exactly the same! -sarcasm-





Here is selected words taken from the original two documents and look closely at the way 22 November is written, same letters, same spacing within the words and same spacing between words. Btw I made these comparisons some time ago and I can't find the original page 1 of the Truly document but I got the Truly 22 November 1963 from that.



So what? All that means is that a document that you approve was witnessed as it was being signed by you. And Baker clearly didn't approve of the coke reference so he crossed it out and initialled the correction.



JohnM

And Baker clearly didn't approve of the coke reference so he crossed it out and initialled the correction.

If Baker was the one who didn't approve of the coke reference, then who was the person that put the reference in there in the first place and based on what?

Do you really believe somebody, out of the blue, came up with the idea to put a reference to the coke in there? What would have been the purpose of that?

[Dan O'meara]

I know you will never understand it. It just makes me laugh watching you fumble around.

If you can't point me to the person who created the theory you pretend is your own just say so.