The Assassination was Sloppy and Amateurish

[Zeon Mason]

That “dingy white” T shirt Oswald had on when he was arrested means apparently he did not change that T shirt for a cleaner fresh T shirt when he changed out that lighter reddish brown shirt for the  brown shirt with hole in the sleeve.

Seems to be another inconsistency imo because it only takes another 30 secs to take off the smelly dingy T shirt and put on a clean dry non dingy white T shirt while in the process of changing to the brown shirt.

Not sure how Arnold Rowland could see “blue” if Oswald was the rifle displaying person at the SW window if Oswald was wearing a reddish brown shirt. Was Rowland colorblind?

[Royell Storing]

Name the LNs who 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.

Where can one read the Knott study? Not a synopsis of the study or a video synopsis of it, but the actual full study itself. What generation copy, or copies, of the Zapruder film did they use? Did they use the Betzner and Willis photos? If so, what generation copies were they? How far inboard of JFK did they determine Connally to be? Did they factor in the right rotation of Connally when concluding that the SBT could not work? It seems that they did not. How do you defend that?

   ALL of this moving of the goal posts is the Brainchild of Max Holland. LN's have been repeating since, "The Lost Bullet" 

[Tim Nickerson]

   ALL of this moving of the goal posts is the Brainchild of Max Holland. LN's have been repeating since, "The Lost Bullet"

Have you read the Knott Lab study or not?

[Tim Nickerson]

That “dingy white” T shirt Oswald had on when he was arrested means apparently he did not change that T shirt for a cleaner fresh T shirt when he changed out that lighter reddish brown shirt for the  brown shirt with hole in the sleeve.

Seems to be another inconsistency imo because it only takes another 30 secs to take off the smelly dingy T shirt and put on a clean dry non dingy white T shirt while in the process of changing to the brown shirt.

Not sure how Arnold Rowland could see “blue” if Oswald was the rifle displaying person at the SW window if Oswald was wearing a reddish brown shirt. Was Rowland colorblind?

Oswald never changed any of his shirts.

[Dan O'meara]

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.

"Edit: I just now noticed the Google AI answer you posted...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..."


Look at the image again, Charles, and all will be revealed:



Rather than ask a silly, loaded question I asked the question that is at the heart of the discussion we are having - "What is an open-necked shirt?"
Google AI automatically responded with an explanation of an open collar shirt.
As far as Google AI is concerned, an open-necked shirt is an open collar shirt. They are the same thing. Which is what I've been arguing from the beginning.
When I Google "open-necked shirt", of the first 100 images I see 99 have a collar and the vast majority have buttons.
When a person refers to an open-necked shirt they are referring to a shirt with a collar.
I know you don't accept this but it is the case.

Rowland's affidavit refers to a shirt "open at the neck". In his WC testimony he expands on this stating that it is an unbuttoned shirt, open at the collar.
When Brennan is asked to identify one of Oswald's shirts that has a collar and buttons, he doesn't say that he saw a t-shirt, the only difference he notes is that the shirt he saw was a lighter colour.
When Fischer concedes the possibility that the open necked shirt he saw might have been a sport shirt or a t-shirt, he is differentiating between the three garments. He is confirming that the open-necked shirt he is talking about is NOT a t-shirt:

"Mr. BELIN - The statement here says that he was light-headed and that he had on an open-neck shirt. Did he have an open-neck shirt on?
Mr. FISCHER - Yes.”

The evidence is over-whelming that these four eye-witnesses are talking about a regular buttoned shirt open at the collar. All four describe the shirt as being very light in colour. Oswald was not wearing such a garment that day and did not have one in his possession.
This is incredibly strong circumstantial evidence that the man on the 6th floor was not Lee Harvey Oswald.
I understand why you are trying to argue otherwise - you realise the importance of this evidence and how it implicates someone other than Oswald as the shooter. Bill Chapman and John Mytton also realised the importance of it but it never crossed their minds to argue that the shirt these men were describing was a t-shirt. They understood that the witnesses were referring to a collared shirt. Unfortunately, the only argument they could come up with - that all colours turn white in daylight - is so ridiculous that it makes the Jet Effect look sane.
There are certain LNers who don't realise the importance of this evidence but they are of little consequence.

My opinion, that these four men are describing a shirt that wasn't worn by Oswald - has been strengthened by our debate as I'm sure yours has. I think we should let others make their own minds up about the arguments we have put forward.

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.

This brings us to more circumstantial evidence that the shooter was not Oswald.
Euins mentions again and again a bald spot on the shooter's head. Oswald had no such bald spot.
I don't think that you should be deciding what the witness meant to say. A bald spot is not a receding hairline, they are different things. Take his testimony at face value, the shooter had a bald spot on his head. If he had a receding hairline, Euins would have said so.
But here's a more important point - if the shooter had a receding hairline, one of the other witnesses would have mentioned it.



Oswald certainly had a receding hairline and it was more prominent on the left side of his head. This is the side that would have been exposed to all five witnesses. It is a really prominent feature and, although all five witnesses had something to say about the shooter's hair, not a single one noticed this most prominent feature. In fact, Rowland specifically stated that the shooter did not have a receding hairline. It must surely be the case that the shooter did not have a receding hairline and, therefore, was not Oswald.
The bald spot Euins noticed can, in no way, be equated with a receding hairline. It makes no sense as they are completely different things. Trying to change what Euins actually said to what he 'meant to say' is really desperate.
When asked where the bald spot was located Euins indicated an area inches "above" his hairline. A face value interpretation of this indicates that the bald spot was on top of the shooter's head. Along with no-one else mentioning a receding hairline and Rowland stating that the shooter did not have a receding hairline, we can take Euins observation of a bald spot on the man's head at face value.
More circumstantial evidence that the shooter wasn't Oswald.
It is interesting to note that Euins could only see the bald spot when the man tilted his head to look down the rifle when taking aim. This can only mean that the shooter tilted his head to the left which would only be done by a left-handed shooter.
Again, more circumstantial evidence that the shooter was not the right-handed Oswald.
That Euins could see the man's hand on the trigger housing also suggests the shooter was left-handed.

It is also of interest that Euins notices the man tilting his head to take aim down the rifle but doesn't see the shooter looking through a scope. It's possible it may have escaped his attention but it also escaped Brennan's attention. Taken at face value, this suggests that the rifle used during the assassination did not have a scope, again suggesting the shooter was not Oswald.
Euins knew a thing or two about rifles as he had been in the ROTC and he displayed some of this knowledge during his testimony:

Mr. SPECTER. How far was it sticking out of the window would you say then, Amos?
Mr. EUINS. I would say it was about something like that.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating about 3 feet?
Mr. EUINS. You know-the trigger housing and stock and receiver group out the window.
Mr. SPECTER. I can’t understand you, Amos.
Mr. EUINS. It was enough to get the stock and receiving house and the trigger housing to stick out the window.
Mr. SPECTER. The stock and receiving house?
Mr. EUINS. Yes.

Euins saw most of the rifle and could described different parts of it so he must've had a good look at it but he didn't see a scope. This might be just an overlooked detail on it's own but it is interesting that the only other witness to see the man actually using the rifle also didn't notice a scope.

Taking the eye-witness statements at face value we have a light coloured/white buttoned shirt, open at the collar. A distinctive bald spot on top of his head. No receding hairline. A rifle without a scope. And a potentially left-handed shooter.
ALL of this circumstantial evidence points away from Oswald being the shooter.

[Dr Alan Howard Davis]

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.

 So.........if it was just Oswald - why the so obvious and blatant cover-up?

[Lance Payette]

So.........if it was just Oswald - why the so obvious and blatant cover-up?

That's quite simple, and I believe Larry Hancock nailed it long ago. In hindsight, Oswald should have been under intense scrutiny - but he wasn't. The CIA, FBI, SS, DPD and others rightfully had egg on their faces. A CYA cover-up was inevitable. Not covering up an assassination conspiracy but covering up their own malfeasance, sometimes one agency at the expense of others. This was one of my great JFKA epiphanies when I first read one of Larry's books - i.e., the assassination and the cover-up were two distinct and separate things; the cover-up was not covering up an assassination conspiracy.

This dovetails with the scholarly book I mentioned (the title escapes me) that examined the wildest conspiracy theories over the past 100 years. In EVERY case, there was actual malfeasance and actual attempts at covering it up. This provided fodder for wild conspiracy theories that were completely wrong and had nothing to do with the actual malfeasance and cover-up. If the bad actors had simply been transparent and fessed up - which, I realize, is contrary to the bureaucratic mindset - the conspiracy theories would never have gotten started.

[Lance Payette]

It’s already a sloppy job by one shooter, so if there’s some idea here that there’s another shooter because of a Knotts Lab  study then that’ would be 2X as sloppy plan that makes no sense at all if Oswald is the being set up as a patsy. It’s an unnecessary complication introducing a different bullet that might  hit JC and have be to replaced after the fact by more complication of swapping out the bullet and falsifying report of witnesses who saw a “pointed bullet”.

It sounds like you're making the same point I am. The JFKA was sloppy and amateurish (albeit successful) because it was a last-minute project by a guy who had to make do with what he had available to him. A sloppy and amateurish Presidential assassination conspiracy makes no sense (unless, I suppose, Oswald enlisted a helper no more prepared than he was, which is not the sort of conspiracy CTers want to hear about). I have phrased this in the past as the supposed conspirators being diabolical geniuses half the time and fumbling stooges the other half, unnecessarily complicating the operation, taking insane risks and leaving 4000 clues for CTers to salivate over; this just isn't realistic or plausible. The core problem is that no professional assassination conspiracy would look anything like Dealey Plaza; CTers are stuck with this scene of the crime and thus have to build their ad hoc theorizing around it. Folks like Dan who want to obsess over details lose sight of the fact that none of it makes any sense. It was "sloppy and amateurish" for a Presidential assassination conspiracy because it wasn't a conspiracy at all.