JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
The Assassination was Sloppy and Amateurish
Dan O'meara:
--- Quote from: Royell Storing on July 14, 2025, 06:27:19 AM --- Since when was it established that Oswald wore a White Shirt to work on 11/22/63? If some of you are going to accept this White Shirt Shooter stuff, then you also have to buy into the sniper's nest shooter NOT being Oswald.
--- End quote ---
Apparently, his is the buttoned-down shirt Oswald wore to work over his white t-shirt:
However, multiple witnesses described the man on the 6th floor wearing a collared shirt, open at the neck, that was either white or so lightly coloured it appeared white:
"He had on a light shirt, a very light-colored shirt, white or a light blue or a color such as that. This was open at the collar. I think it was unbuttoned about halfway and then he had a regular t-shirt...under this..." Arnold Rowland
"And he had-he had on an open-neck shirt...It was light in color: probably white, I couldn’t tell whether it had long sleeves or whether it was a short-sleeved shirt, but it was open-neck and light in color." Ronald Fischer
"Light colored shirt, short sleeve and open neck" Robert Edwards
"I mean other than light color - not a real white shirt, in other words. If it was a white shirt, it was on the dingy side" Howard Brennan
Oswald was not wearing such a shirt on the day of the assassination and didn't have such a shirt in his possession when he was arrested.
This is strong evidence that the shooter was not Oswald.
All credible evidence regarding who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald.
Dan O'meara:
--- Quote from: Dr Alan Howard Davis on July 13, 2025, 11:08:53 PM ---just one American citizen
--- End quote ---
What??
You talk about a shooter in the TSBD building AND a shooter on the GK.
Are you saying this was the same person?
You seem to be a bit all over the place Dr Alan.
Have a long hard think about what you actually think.
Charles Collins:
--- Quote from: Dan O'meara on July 14, 2025, 10:37:11 AM ---Apparently, his is the buttoned-down shirt Oswald wore to work over his white t-shirt:
However, multiple witnesses described the man on the 6th floor wearing a collared shirt, open at the neck, that was either white or so lightly coloured it appeared white:
"He had on a light shirt, a very light-colored shirt, white or a light blue or a color such as that. This was open at the collar. I think it was unbuttoned about halfway and then he had a regular t-shirt...under this..." Arnold Rowland
"And he had-he had on an open-neck shirt...It was light in color: probably white, I couldn’t tell whether it had long sleeves or whether it was a short-sleeved shirt, but it was open-neck and light in color." Ronald Fischer
"Light colored shirt, short sleeve and open neck" Robert Edwards
"I mean other than light color - not a real white shirt, in other words. If it was a white shirt, it was on the dingy side" Howard Brennan
Oswald was not wearing such a shirt on the day of the assassination and didn't have such a shirt in his possession when he was arrested.
This is strong evidence that the shooter was not Oswald.
All credible evidence regarding who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald.
--- End quote ---
Open neck shirt does not translate directly to a collared shirt. It can just as easily describe a t-shirt. What I believe these witnesses are saying is that it was open to the neck (versus a buttoned up collar, with normally a tie worn also). In 1963, shirt and ties (often with coats) were more commonly worn than they are these days. Especially among office workers, sales people, etc. Therefore I believe most of these witnesses are most likely describing his t-shirt.
Dan O'meara:
--- Quote from: Charles Collins on July 14, 2025, 11:30:17 AM ---
Open neck shirt does not translate directly to a collared shirt. It can just as easily describe a t-shirt. What I believe these witnesses are saying is that it was open to the neck (versus a buttoned up collar, with normally a tie worn also). In 1963, shirt and ties (often with coats) were more commonly worn than they are these days. Especially among office workers, sales people, etc. Therefore I believe most of these witnesses are most likely describing his t-shirt.
--- End quote ---
Rowland specifically describes it as being open at the collar with a t-shirt underneath so I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
And the garment is consistently described as a 'shirt' as opposed to a 't-shirt' by all four witnesses so we'll have to disagree on that too as I believe people know the difference between the two.
Also, Oswald's t-shirt was brilliant white whereas the open necked shirt worn by the shooter was consistently described as not quite white, more like a really light colour rather than pure white.
I find your interpretation really strained and based on your well-founded conviction that Oswald was the shooter therefore the witnesses
must be describing his t-shirt because the shooter was Oswald and he was wearing a white t-shirt therefore they must be describing Oswald's white t-shirt because Oswald was the shooter and he was wearing...etc.
A fair interpretation, the face value interpretation, is that the man on the 6th floor was wearing a very light coloured shirt open at the collar.
From this interpretation, and the knowledge that Oswald wasn't wearing such clothing, one has to conclude that this evidence points away from Oswald being the shooter.
As I say, all credible evidence regarding who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald. This is just one example.
Charles Collins:
--- Quote from: Dan O'meara on July 14, 2025, 12:11:20 PM ---
Rowland specifically describes it as being open at the collar with a t-shirt underneath so I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
And the garment is consistently described as a 'shirt' as opposed to a 't-shirt' by all four witnesses so we'll have to disagree on that too as I believe people know the difference between the two.
Also, Oswald's t-shirt was brilliant white whereas the open necked shirt worn by the shooter was consistently described as not quite white, more like a really light colour rather than pure white.
I find your interpretation really strained and based on your well-founded conviction that Oswald was the shooter therefore the witnesses
must be describing his t-shirt because the shooter was Oswald and he was wearing a white t-shirt therefore they must be describing Oswald's white t-shirt because Oswald was the shooter and he was wearing...etc.
A fair interpretation, the face value interpretation, is that the man on the 6th floor was wearing a very light coloured shirt open at the collar.
From this interpretation, and the knowledge that Oswald wasn't wearing such clothing, one has to conclude that this evidence points away from Oswald being the shooter.
As I say, all credible evidence regarding who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald. This is just one example.
--- End quote ---
Rowland specifically describes it as being open at the collar with a t-shirt underneath so I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
You are entitled to whatever opinion you want. However, Rowland (the only one of the witnesses you cite, who gave that description) said he saw this person on the west end of the building about 15-minutes before the shooting. I think it is entirely reasonable that the assassin could have still been wearing his shirt over the t-shirt at that point in time, shedding the outer shirt later, only after he got hot due to sitting in the sun shining in through the sniper’s nest window. If I remember correctly, Rowland gave that description months after the assassination (as he was embellishing some other aspects of what he said he saw). Jackie Kennedy described the sun as being very hot (and she was in a moving convertible with the resulting wind helping to cool her off).
And the garment is consistently described as a 'shirt' as opposed to a 't-shirt' by all four witnesses so we'll have to disagree on that too as I believe people know the difference between the two.
Semantics are not going to change the fact that a t-shirt actually is an open neck shirt (versus a buttoned up collar on a collared shirt).
Also, Oswald's t-shirt was brilliant white whereas the open necked shirt worn by the shooter was consistently described as not quite white, more like a really light colour rather than pure white.
No LHO’s shirt was a dingy white. There are numerous photos that confirm this fact.
I find your interpretation really strained and based on your well-founded conviction that Oswald was the shooter therefore the witnesses
must be describing his t-shirt because the shooter was Oswald and he was wearing a white t-shirt therefore they must be describing Oswald's white t-shirt because Oswald was the shooter and he was wearing...etc.
The circumstantial evidence suggests that LHO was in the sniper’s nest at the time of the assassination. This includes fingerprints, numerous witness descriptions of the shooter, no alibi, LHO’s rifle and ammo, LHO last reported seen on the sixth floor, no one saw LHO elsewhere, no strangers reported seen in the TSBD any any of the people who worked there (even after each one being asked that specific questions by the FBI) etc, etc.
If there is any credible evidence of someone else in the sniper’s nest at the time of the assassination, I am unaware of it.
A fair interpretation, the face value interpretation, is that the man on the 6th floor was wearing a very light coloured shirt open at the collar.
From this interpretation, and the knowledge that Oswald wasn't wearing such clothing, one has to conclude that this evidence points away from Oswald being the shooter.
As I say, all credible evidence regarding who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald. This is just one example.
[/quote]
Sorry, but I believe strongly that an unbiased jury would have to conclude otherwise.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version