JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
The Assassination was Sloppy and Amateurish
Charles Collins:
--- Quote from: Dan O'meara on July 24, 2025, 10:13:02 PM ---As stated at the beginning of this exchange - we will have to agree to disagree on this issue.
Rowland specifically states the shirt had a collar and was unbuttoned. You might be free to ignore this bit I am not.
When Brennan is shown a collared shirt he doesn't say it was a t-shirt he saw or that it didn't have a collar. He merely states the shirt he saw was lighter in colour. In effect, he is confirming that the man he saw was wearing a collared shirt.
It is clear to anyone using common sense and being honest that these four eye-witnesses are not describing a white t-shirt. They are describing a very light coloured/white collared shirt open at the neck.
I believe your desperate attempt to argue that they are describing Oswald's brilliant white crew-neck t-shirt is based on your unwavering belief, even in the face on contrary evidence, that Oswald was the shooter.
And that's fair enough.
At least your not backing the ridiculous argument invented by Bill Chapman and resurrected by John Mytton, that daylight turns all colours white and that's why Oswald's shirt appeared to be white and not it's actual colour.
It is strong circumstantial evidence that the man on the 6th floor was not Oswald.
As is the passage of the Euins testimony you posted, that the shooter had a bald spot about "2 1/2 inches above where his hairline is" - meaning a bald spot on top of the man's head.
This bald spot could only be seen by Euins when the man tilted his head to look down the rifle to take aim, indicating that the shooter was left-handed.
It is also of interest that Euins didn't see a scope on the rifle (neither did Brennan), even though he got a clear look at the shooter taking aim. One would assume the shooter was looking into the scope as he was aiming but there didn't appear to be a scope on the rifle.
Just sayin'
--- End quote ---
Rowland specifically states the shirt had a collar and was unbuttoned. You might be free to ignore this bit I am not.
Again, I haven't ignored it. Rowland's sighting was at a different time and place. His description was not of a man in the sniper's nest window or at the time of the shooting. It is reasonable to believe the outer shirt could have been shed during the ~15-minute interval. I am not contesting what Rowland said he saw. But I do believe he substantially embellished his testimony for the WC. Therefore I simply discount the WC testimony as compared to what he said in his 11/22/63 affidavit.
In effect, he is confirming that the man he saw was wearing a collared shirt.
No, Brennan did not confirm or deny that. He simply indicated a lighter shade.
It is clear to anyone using common sense and being honest that these four eye-witnesses are not describing a white t-shirt. They are describing a very light coloured/white collared shirt open at the neck.
That is simply not true whatsoever. First of all, again, an open-neck shirt does not need to have a collar in order to be classified as an open-neck shirt (per Google AI). Secondly, Ronald Fischer said specifically that it could have been a t-shirt (see that portion of his testimony below).
Mr. FISCHER. And he had--he had on an open-neck shirt, but it-uh--could have been a sport shirt or a T-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.
Uh---he had a slender face and neck---uh---and he had a light complexion----he was a white man. And he looked to be 22 or 24 years old.
I believe your desperate attempt to argue that they are describing Oswald's brilliant white crew-neck t-shirt ...
LHO's t-shirt was worn out and a very dingy white (nowhere near as white as the shirts worn by the LEOs in the same properly exposed photos which I already posted earlier in this thread).
It is strong circumstantial evidence that the man on the 6th floor was not Oswald.
No, the descriptions fit LHO's dingy white, very open at the collar, t-shirt quite well. The fact that all three witnesses, who described the shirt on the man in the sniper's nest window, apparently independently came up with the open-neck aspect is important. Because the large amount of openness of LHO's t-shirt in the neck area is probably its most striking and noticeable feature. This, along with the rest of their descriptions, is strong evidence that they were describing LHO.
As is the passage of the Euins testimony you posted, that the shooter had a bald spot about "2 1/2 inches above where his hairline is" - meaning a bald spot on top of the man's head.
Male pattern baldness includes a receding hairline as we can see on LHO. I believe that Euins was probably pointing to one of the areas on his head comparable to where LHO's hairline had already receded substantially. Overall Euins' testimony lacks details, so I have to discount his description substantially anyway.
This bald spot could only be seen by Euins when the man tilted his head to look down the rifle to take aim, indicating that the shooter was left-handed.
Not if he was describing a receding hairline which is similar on each side.
It is also of interest that Euins didn't see a scope on the rifle (neither did Brennan), even though he got a clear look at the shooter taking aim. One would assume the shooter was looking into the scope as he was aiming but there didn't appear to be a scope on the rifle.
Seeing a scope and noticing it are two different things. Brennan clarified his statement in his WC testimony. He simply did not notice a scope (but it could have had one and he just didn't take note of it) and therefore he does not know if the rifle had a scope or not. Typical of many details our human memories often don't remember correctly.
My point is that the evidence does not support the conclusion that "it couldn't have been LHO because of the descriptions of the shirt." Do I think that I know with certainty exactly what LHO was wearing? No, however the descriptions by the three witnesses who saw the man in the sniper's nest window fit the dingy white open-neck t-shirt LHO was arrested in quite well.
Edit: I just now noticed the Google AI answer you posted. I must have overlooked it thinking it was just another advertisement. Read the answer again. It is describing an open-collar shirt, not an open-neck shirt. There is a difference, the two different names basically say it without further information needed. Read the one I posted asking about whether or not an open-neck shirt needed to have a collar. It does not.
Lance Payette:
At the risk of my sanity, I skimmed this entire thread. It appears to be yet another example of what I call "Seinfeld Show" JFKA threads: The Thread About Nothing.
The simple fact is, the events of 11-22-1963 look precisely nothing like any real-world conspiracy, be it a professional hit or a Keystone Cops parody.
The events of 11-22-1963 look precisely like what we would expect if Oswald were the lone gunman.
It's really as simple as that.
All of the "oh, yeah, what about THIS?" and "oh. yeah, what about THAT?" CT speculation really just goes nowhere because it is impossible to turn the events of 11-22-1963 into anything resembling a plausible, real-world conspiracy to assassinate the President of the United States.
Anyone who doesn't see the humor in these discussions probably didn't get the underlying joke of the Seinfeld Show either.
Royell Storing:
The reliance on the SBT is what consistently DQ's the Lone Nut stuff. And now they have had to almost double the elapsed shooting time to 11+ seconds and even have Oswald firing a shot while standing up down through a 1/4 open window. The LN scenario continues being forced to change the parameters.
Tim Nickerson:
--- Quote from: Royell Storing on July 25, 2025, 06:49:13 PM --- The reliance on the SBT is what consistently DQ's the Lone Nut stuff. And now they have had to almost double the elapsed shooting time to 11+ seconds and even have Oswald firing a shot while standing up down through a 1/4 open window. The LN scenario continues being forced to change the parameters.
--- End quote ---
The SBT is rock solid. As Dale Myers noted some years ago, the Single Bullet theory should really be known as the Single Bullet fact. I for one do not believe that the shooting span for the shots was 11+ seconds. That's not to say that I couldn't be convinced of it. I believe that the first shot was taken at about Z153. The CT scenario hasn't really changed much in the past 60 years. It's one that denies the real evidence and makes up and embraces bogus stuff.
Royell Storing:
--- Quote from: Tim Nickerson on July 25, 2025, 09:09:53 PM ---The SBT is rock solid. As Dale Myers noted some years ago, the Single Bullet theory should really be known as the Single Bullet fact. I for one do not believe that the shooting span for the shots was 11+ seconds. That's not to say that I couldn't be convinced of it. I believe that the first shot was taken at about Z153. The CT scenario hasn't really changed much in the past 60 years. It's one that denies the real evidence and makes up and embraces bogus stuff.
--- End quote ---
The LN's have been forced into: (1) Extending the elapsed firing time to 11+ seconds, (2) Oswald firing Shot #1 from a Standing Position straight down through the 1/4 open window, (3) Then sitting down to fire shots #2 and #3, and (4) Moving the physical position of the JFK Limo on Elm St. And this, "SBT is rock solid"? The SBT has been proven "Impossible" by Knott Lab FORENSIC SCIENCE. Nothing science based has ever Proven the SBT. Back when the pandemic was running wild, all we ever heard was, "follow the science". Following Science also applies with respect to the SBT being declared "Impossible".
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version