JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
The Assassination was Sloppy and Amateurish
Dan O'meara:
--- Quote from: Charles Collins on July 14, 2025, 02:15:21 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.
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).
--- End quote ---
"You are entitled to whatever opinion you want."
As are you Charles.
You accept Rowland's observation of a man with with a scoped rifle on the 6th floor and that the man had a shirt on over a t-shirt, but you don't accept the colour of the shirt he gives - "a very light-colored shirt, white or a light blue"
The opinion I have allows me to take witness statements at face value rather than assume 'what they really meant to say'.
--- Quote --- 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).
--- End quote ---
It's not about semantics.
Different garments have different names - trousers are called trousers, jackets are called jackets etc.
Different types of shirt have different names.
You, yourself have demonstrated this in your last few posts:
"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."
Here you specifically delineate the difference between a shirt and Oswald's t-shirt.
A white t-shirt is an iconic garment and instantly recognisable (think James Dean). Everyone knows what a t-shirt is and when trying to give an accurate description it would be stated as such.
There can be absolutely no doubt that these witnesses are not describing a t-shirt.
They are doing what you have naturally done - recognised the difference between a shirt and a t-shirt.
--- Quote --- 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.
--- End quote ---
Really?
Feel free to post your own copy of his mugshot and see if yours is any less brilliant white.
--- Quote --- 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.
--- End quote ---
"The circumstantial evidence suggests that LHO was in the sniper’s nest at the time of the assassination."
This is completely wrong.
Every single piece of credible circumstantial evidence available regarding who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald.
We are in the midst of a discussion wherein four eye-witnesses are describing clothing Oswald wasn't wearing and didn't own. This is really strong circumstantial evidence that the shooter was not Oswald. Just because you are trying to wish it away is meaningless.
"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."
There is so much wrong in this paragraph I refuse to get involved. All that needs to be said is that there not a single point you've made here that puts Oswald in the SN at the time of the assassination. Not one. Not even close.
That you think you have provided evidence placing him there at the time of the shooting is your issue, not mine.
It smacks of the LNers belief that it is a proven fact Oswald took the shots, when it is just another theory.
"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."
Just as you are unaware of any credible evidence placing Oswald in the SN at the time of the assassination.
--- Quote --- 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.
Sorry, but I believe strongly that an unbiased jury would have to conclude otherwise.
--- End quote ---
But that's a biased opinion.
Dr Alan Howard Davis:
--- 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 ---
It was a slick and professional job because the President was killed, Oswald was implicated, and the perpetrators escaped…job done!
It means…..as long as the bullets could be recovered -whether that was in somebody in the car – or the car itself, or even recovered from Dealey Plaza, they would be traced back to the gun deliberately left on the sixth floor, thus implicating Oswald. Just because something is ‘dealt with in the thread’ does not mean it is a fact! There is a volume of evidence for a second gunman behind the picket fence (would you like to explain away all of that evidence?) That person in the TSBD’s job was not to kill JFK – unless he got lucky with the Carcano, he was there to attract attention to the sixth floor where they would find Oswald’s gun – and why he wore white. Snipers wear clothes that blend into the background – not something that shouts – “here I am”!!
The shooter in the sniper’s nest was NOT Oswald. He was a military professional who had enough time to escape the TSBD before Truly and Baker turned up – or any of the women running in high heeled shoes across the floor and down several flights of stairs- a similar distance he would make – but much faster.
Rather than challenging my logic, perhaps you ought to challenge the ubiquitous illogical myth that many government agents enabled the assassination based on suppositions that do not fit with the facts, and has never lead to any of them revealing the ‘truth’.
Charles Collins:
--- Quote from: Dan O'meara on July 14, 2025, 03:21:37 PM ---"You are entitled to whatever opinion you want."
As are you Charles.
You accept Rowland's observation of a man with with a scoped rifle on the 6th floor and that the man had a shirt on over a t-shirt, but you don't accept the colour of the shirt he gives - "a very light-colored shirt, white or a light blue"
The opinion I have allows me to take witness statements at face value rather than assume 'what they really meant to say'.
It's not about semantics.
Different garments have different names - trousers are called trousers, jackets are called jackets etc.
Different types of shirt have different names.
You, yourself have demonstrated this in your last few posts:
"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."
Here you specifically delineate the difference between a shirt and Oswald's t-shirt.
A white t-shirt is an iconic garment and instantly recognisable (think James Dean). Everyone knows what a t-shirt is and when trying to give an accurate description it would be stated as such.
There can be absolutely no doubt that these witnesses are not describing a t-shirt.
They are doing what you have naturally done - recognised the difference between a shirt and a t-shirt.
Really?
Feel free to post your own copy of his mugshot and see if yours is any less brilliant white.
"The circumstantial evidence suggests that LHO was in the sniper’s nest at the time of the assassination."
This is completely wrong.
Every single piece of credible circumstantial evidence available regarding who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald.
We are in the midst of a discussion wherein four eye-witnesses are describing clothing Oswald wasn't wearing and didn't own. This is really strong circumstantial evidence that the shooter was not Oswald. Just because you are trying to wish it away is meaningless.
"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."
There is so much wrong in this paragraph I refuse to get involved. All that needs to be said is that there not a single point you've made here that puts Oswald in the SN at the time of the assassination. Not one. Not even close.
That you think you have provided evidence placing him there at the time of the shooting is your issue, not mine.
It smacks of the LNers belief that it is a proven fact Oswald took the shots, when it is just another theory.
"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."
Just as you are unaware of any credible evidence placing Oswald in the SN at the time of the assassination.
But that's a biased opinion.
--- End quote ---
As are you Charles.
You accept Rowland's observation of a man with with a scoped rifle on the 6th floor and that the man had a shirt on over a t-shirt, but you don't accept the colour of the shirt he gives - "a very light-colored shirt, white or a light blue"
The opinion I have allows me to take witness statements at face value rather than assume 'what they really meant to say'.
I haven't said what I accept from Rowland's account. I offered a reasonable explanation for anyone who might believe his description is accurate. Ignoring the explanation and jumping to other conclusions isn't going to win you any arguments.
It's not about semantics.
Different garments have different names - trousers are called trousers, jackets are called jackets etc.
Different types of shirt have different names.
You, yourself have demonstrated this in your last few posts:
"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."
Here you specifically delineate the difference between a shirt and Oswald's t-shirt.
A white t-shirt is an iconic garment and instantly recognisable (think James Dean). Everyone knows what a t-shirt is and when trying to give an accurate description it would be stated as such.
There can be absolutely no doubt that these witnesses are not describing a t-shirt.
They are doing what you have naturally done - recognised the difference between a shirt and a t-shirt.
That's nonsense and wishful thinking. Semantics are at the heart of your opinions. The witnesses do not specify an open collared shirt, only open-neck. I believe they are simply differentiating between someone wearing a buttoned up collared shirt (usually with a tie) and someone who is not.
Really?
Feel free to post your own copy of his mugshot and see if yours is any less brilliant white.
Posting an over-exposed photo isn't going to cut the mustard.
Compare the whites in the officers' attires to the dingy t-shirt LHO is wearing in this photo:
There is so much wrong in this paragraph I refuse to get involved. All that needs to be said is that there not a single point you've made here that puts Oswald in the SN at the time of the assassination. Not one. Not even close.
That you think you have provided evidence placing him there at the time of the shooting is your issue, not mine.
It smacks of the LNers belief that it is a proven fact Oswald took the shots, when it is just another theory.
Circumstantial evidence is cumulative. A jury is required to consider the totality of the evidence. Ask Scott Peterson about circumstantial evidence. I believe he is still in prison.
Dan O'meara:
--- Quote from: Charles Collins on July 14, 2025, 04:38:48 PM ---
As are you Charles.
You accept Rowland's observation of a man with with a scoped rifle on the 6th floor and that the man had a shirt on over a t-shirt, but you don't accept the colour of the shirt he gives - "a very light-colored shirt, white or a light blue"
The opinion I have allows me to take witness statements at face value rather than assume 'what they really meant to say'.
I haven't said what I accept from Rowland's account. I offered a reasonable explanation for anyone who might believe his description is accurate. Ignoring the explanation and jumping to other conclusions isn't going to win you any arguments.
It's not about semantics.
Different garments have different names - trousers are called trousers, jackets are called jackets etc.
Different types of shirt have different names.
You, yourself have demonstrated this in your last few posts:
"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."
Here you specifically delineate the difference between a shirt and Oswald's t-shirt.
A white t-shirt is an iconic garment and instantly recognisable (think James Dean). Everyone knows what a t-shirt is and when trying to give an accurate description it would be stated as such.
There can be absolutely no doubt that these witnesses are not describing a t-shirt.
They are doing what you have naturally done - recognised the difference between a shirt and a t-shirt.
That's nonsense and wishful thinking. Semantics are at the heart of your opinions. The witnesses do not specify an open collared shirt, only open-neck. I believe they are simply differentiating between someone wearing a buttoned up collared shirt (usually with a tie) and someone who is not.
Really?
Feel free to post your own copy of his mugshot and see if yours is any less brilliant white.
Posting an over-exposed photo isn't going to cut the mustard.
Compare the whites in the officers' attires to the dingy t-shirt LHO is wearing in this photo:
There is so much wrong in this paragraph I refuse to get involved. All that needs to be said is that there not a single point you've made here that puts Oswald in the SN at the time of the assassination. Not one. Not even close.
That you think you have provided evidence placing him there at the time of the shooting is your issue, not mine.
It smacks of the LNers belief that it is a proven fact Oswald took the shots, when it is just another theory.
Circumstantial evidence is cumulative. A jury is required to consider the totality of the evidence. Ask Scott Peterson about circumstantial evidence. I believe he is still in prison.
--- End quote ---
If the shooter was wearing a t-shirt the witnesses would have said so.
You don't believe that.
I do.
I believe Rowland is describing the same man as Fischer, Edwards and Brennan and he describes a shirt open at the collar.
I believe the witnesses would know the difference between a t-shirt and a shirt.
You don't.
Fair enough.
Just for fun, Google "Open Neck Shirt".
See if anyone else agrees with your suspect assertion that this refers to a t-shirt (spoiler alert - the dozens of images that come up have shirts open at the collar. Looks like it's only you).
Dan O'meara:
--- Quote from: Dr Alan Howard Davis on July 14, 2025, 04:27:19 PM ---It was a slick and professional job because the President was killed, Oswald was implicated, and the perpetrators escaped…job done!
It means…..as long as the bullets could be recovered -whether that was in somebody in the car – or the car itself, or even recovered from Dealey Plaza, they would be traced back to the gun deliberately left on the sixth floor, thus implicating Oswald. Just because something is ‘dealt with in the thread’ does not mean it is a fact! There is a volume of evidence for a second gunman behind the picket fence (would you like to explain away all of that evidence?) That person in the TSBD’s job was not to kill JFK – unless he got lucky with the Carcano, he was there to attract attention to the sixth floor where they would find Oswald’s gun – and why he wore white. Snipers wear clothes that blend into the background – not something that shouts – “here I am”!!
The shooter in the sniper’s nest was NOT Oswald. He was a military professional who had enough time to escape the TSBD before Truly and Baker turned up – or any of the women running in high heeled shoes across the floor and down several flights of stairs- a similar distance he would make – but much faster.
Rather than challenging my logic, perhaps you ought to challenge the ubiquitous illogical myth that many government agents enabled the assassination based on suppositions that do not fit with the facts, and has never lead to any of them revealing the ‘truth’.
--- End quote ---
"There is a volume of evidence for a second gunman behind the picket fence (would you like to explain away all of that evidence?)"
Yes, I would.
You bring on the strongest arguments for why you believe there was a gunman on the GK and I'll explain it away.
"Rather than challenging my logic,"
You're clearly unaware with how this forum works.
You might believe you get to post any nonsense you want without being challenged on it but you're wrong.
You've got to back up any claims you make.
And your "logic" regarding the TSBD shooter is non-existent so I can't challenge it.
Maybe take us through how this shooter knew the 6th floor would be available? That it wouldn't be packed with employees.
And why do you think he was a "distraction" when only two people actually saw him during the shooting out of the hundreds in Dealey Plaza. How does your "logic" equate that with a distraction? and what was he supposed to be distracting people from? The shooter on the GK?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version