JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
The Assassination was Sloppy and Amateurish
Royell Storing:
--- Quote from: Lance Payette on July 29, 2025, 01:48:47 AM ---That's not true if the one shooter is Oswald, who conceives of his plan perhaps 24-36 hours in advance, has to bum a ride to retrieve his clunky Carcano, must assemble the rifle and fashion a sniper's nest during the lunch hour at his place of employment, has no plan of escape, etc., etc. Given Oswald as the assassin, the operation could not be anything other than seat-of-his-pants sloppy and amateurish. Do you actually think the LN narrative describes an assassination that was organized and professional?
--- End quote ---
24-36 hrs in advance? Phony ID, PO Box mailing address, mail order rifle. Whether solo or in concert, this was planned out in advance. The Amateur Hour here starred the JFK Assassination Research Community. They should have buttoned up a lot of the still unanswered questions while the main players were still alive.
Tom Graves:
--- Quote from: Royell Storing on July 29, 2025, 02:14:18 AM ---24-36 hrs in advance? Phony ID, PO Box mailing address, mail order rifle. Whether solo or in concert, this was planned out in advance. The Amateur Hour here starred the JFK Assassination Research Community. They should have buttoned up a lot of the still unanswered questions while the main players were still alive.
--- End quote ---
Storing,
It may be that Oswald's attempted assassination of General Walker was planned far-in-advance, and that his successful assassination of JFK was a spur-of-the-moment kinda thing.
D'oh
Dan O'meara:
--- Quote from: Lance Payette on July 29, 2025, 01:32:18 AM ---A few weeks ago, you were arguing for a tight, financially and politically motivated conspiracy involving LBJ, Byrd, Cason, Shelley and a professional hitman in the TSBD. Now it's still a conspiracy but the Three Stooges were the conspirators. Well, I suppose a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, as Ralph Waldo Emerson said. I'll have to admit, I am indeed "impervious" to your sort of theorizing. Show me a genuinely plausible, evidence-based theory and I'll listen - and perhaps even be convinced. "That wasn't Oswald the witnesses saw in the TSBD window!!" doesn't move the needle.
No, others don't do my thinking for me. I have supreme confidence in my intellect and critical-thinking skills. That's precisely how and why I morphed from an enthusiastic CTer to a provisional LNer. The trouble is, when someone is not a whacked-out LN zealot but likewise not a whacked-out CT zealot, whacked-out CT zealots like you don't know what to do with him - so you label him an LN zealot, the truth be damned. Like almost everything else JFKA-related, it's fundamentally humorous.
Well, I suppose in the broadest sense the LN narrative is "just a theory" and every CT narrative is "just a theory." What actually occurred cannot be known to a level of ontological certainty. Maybe Hickey actually did trip over his shoelaces and accidentally shoot JFK with his AR-15. In the same sense, a spherical earth and a flat earth are both "just" theories. But the spherical earth and flat earth "theories" are scarcely equivalent. One is supported by evidence and logic to the extent that it is regarded as a scientific "truth," while the other is regarded as silly and those who believe it are regarded as lacking in basic reasoning skills.
You seem to fail to appreciate the distinction, at least insofar as JFKA-related theories are concerned.
--- End quote ---
Yet another post devoid of content.
"Show me a genuinely plausible, evidence-based theory and I'll listen..."
:D :D :D
You may be deluded but at least you're funny
"That wasn't Oswald the witnesses saw in the TSBD window!!"
This is exactly the kind of deluded argument you specialise in. A deluded pronouncement with no evidence to back it up.
As I say, part of your delusion appears to be that you believe your opinion is a fact, so when you make these baseless pronouncements you really believe you're making some kind of genuine contribution.
On the other hand, in this thread I've presented a large amount of testimony which, when taken at face value, can only realistically be interpreted as strong circumstantial evidence that the man on the 6th floor was not Oswald. Of course, it hasn't crossed your deluded mind to address actual evidence.
Well, I suppose in the broadest sense the LN narrative is "just a theory"...
You don't need to "suppose" anything.
You're notion, that Oswald took the shots, is a theory. That is a fact. No supposing required.
Like all zealots, you find this obvious truth a little difficult to swallow.
Lance Payette:
--- Quote from: Dan O'meara on July 31, 2025, 10:49:26 AM ---Yet another post devoid of content.
"Show me a genuinely plausible, evidence-based theory and I'll listen..."
:D :D :D
You may be deluded but at least you're funny
"That wasn't Oswald the witnesses saw in the TSBD window!!"
This is exactly the kind of deluded argument you specialise in. A deluded pronouncement with no evidence to back it up.
As I say, part of your delusion appears to be that you believe your opinion is a fact, so when you make these baseless pronouncements you really believe you're making some kind of genuine contribution.
On the other hand, in this thread I've presented a large amount of testimony which, when taken at face value, can only realistically be interpreted as strong circumstantial evidence that the man on the 6th floor was not Oswald. Of course, it hasn't crossed your deluded mind to address actual evidence.
Well, I suppose in the broadest sense the LN narrative is "just a theory"...
You don't need to "suppose" anything.
You're notion, that Oswald took the shots, is a theory. That is a fact. No supposing required.
Like all zealots, you find this obvious truth a little difficult to swallow.
--- End quote ---
Wow, four "deluded" and one "delusional" in a single short post! This may be my new personal best. Does the phrase "Methinks thou doth protest too much" ring a bell? (Hamlet, although Slick Willie used to say to Hillary fairly often.)
Yes, Our Man Dan actually does regard all theories as fungible. Spherical earth, flat earth - well, who can really say?
You have presented testimony that, in a vacuum, could be interpreted as suggesting Someone Other Than Oswald was on the sixth floor. Even when that testimony is viewed in a vacuum, most critical thinkers would not and do not agree that this is the most reasonable interpretation.
Moreover, this testimony cannot be viewed in a vacuum. It must be viewed in the context of (1) a veritable mountain of evidence suggesting rather strongly that Oswald was on the sixth floor firing his trust Carcano; (2) a complete absence of evidence (other than the testimony you interpret in this manner) that anyone else was on the sixth floor; and (3) the insurmountable logical and logistical problems associated with Oswald being in the TSBD while his trusty Carcano and Someone Other Than Him were on the sixth floor.
You are, in essence, a JFKA Flat Earther. "Methinks thou art sorely lacking in ye olde critical thinking skills." (Little Old Lance, not Hamlet or Slick Willie.)
Lance Payette:
Because I am a Serious and Dedicated Researcher who is housebound with an Achilles problem, I have now reviewed this entire thread and given due consideration to Dan’s evidential arguments relating to Someone Other Than Oswald being the sixth-floor gunman. Dan is a classic example of what I described in my fabled thread at the Ed Forum, “A Beginner’s Guide to the Conspiracy Game.”
In the Conspiracy Game, eyewitness testimony is the best of all evidence – quite the opposite of what lawyers and forensic folks know to be true. If three eyewitnesses describe the getaway car as being “dark gray,” “almost black” and “maroon” – well, by God, in the Conspiracy Game there were three cars and what might seem on the surface to be a routine bank robbery was in fact a multi-faceted conspiracy. Don’t try to reconcile those three accounts, pal – the eyewitnesses know what they saw, they saw three cars, and eyewitnesses are never wrong if what they say supports a conspiracy.
Charles has politely and thoroughly refuted Dan's arguments. I merely added that Dan blithely ignores the massive factual and logical issues raised by Someone Other Than Oswald being the gunman. Dan is either just playing the Conspiracy Game because he enjoys a feisty debate or is, alas, really a JFKA Flat Earther as I’ve suggested.
Because I am Serious and Dedicated Researcher, I reviewed the affidavits and testimonies of all the relevant witnesses. Of those who actually saw someone in the southeast sixth-floor window, a couple (Edwards and Fischer) describe Oswald about as accurately as could be expected; no one describes someone who flatly could not be Oswald. Jarman said Oswald typically worked in his t-shirt, and it’s probable Oswald would have preferred to do his shooting in a t-shirt rather than a long-sleeved overshirt. When we consider that the guy in the sniper’s nest was scarcely the star attraction and no one paid attention to him for more than a period of seconds, the eyewitness testimony is quite compelling. (In the context of all the other evidence, it’s merely icing on the cake – but we’re charitably ignoring this reality in order to meet Dan on his own Conspiracy Game terms.)
The outlier is Arnold Rowland, 18-year-old high school student and part-time pizza guy (no slur intended – my first job was delivering pizzas) with a 99.9th percentile IQ of 147 (or so he said). His “man with a rifle” was standing several feet back from the window AT THE OTHER (SOUTHWEST) END OF THE BUILDING. This was the open area where the flooring work was being done, which is why the boxes were conveniently (for Oswald) stacked at the east end. Can we be sure that the guy was actually holding a rifle at all? Do we have any reason to think it was Oswald? Why would Oswald be there? On the other hand, can we be sure it wasn’t Oswald, prior to removing his overshirt?
THERE IS NO DOUBT, screams Dan. It was Someone Other Than Oswald with a rifle. Eyewitnesses are never wrong. This was a man with a rifle in a blue or light-colored overshirt who could not have been Oswald. (Never mind that the rest of Rowland’s description is pretty close – white, slender, 140 to 150 pounds, possibly early thirties. Never mind that Barbara Rowland testified that her husband was “prone to exaggerate.”)
In his 11-22-63 statement to the Sheriff’s Department, Rowland had said “This man appeared to be a white man and appeared to have a light-colored shirt on, open at the neck. He appeared to be of slender build and appeared to have dark hair.” In his 11-22-63 interview with the FBI, he had described “a white male of slender build and appeared to have dark hair. He appeared to have on a light-colored shirt, open at the neck.” In a phone call with the FBI the next day, he had said "he was looking around at the buildings and observed an unknown male wearing a light-colored shirt [but] was not close enough to identify the person he saw and cannot say if it was or was not Lee Harvey Oswald.” In his 11-24-63 statement to the FBI, the man he saw “appeared to be slender in proportion to his height, was wearing a white or light-colored shirt, either collarless or open at the neck. He appeared to have dark hair ... I would not be able to identify the person I saw due to the distance involved.”
Nothing about an overshirt. Just a white or light-colored shirt, collarless or open at the neck. What is the most prominent aspect of a V-neck t-shirt? It shows more neck than any other type of shirt. Duh.
Before he saw the man with the rifle in the SOUTHWEST window, Rowland saw a man hanging out the SOUTHEAST sixth-floor window. This was a very thin, elderly, bald Negro in a very bright plaid shirt who disappeared when Rowland looked again. He is obviously mistaken about this – surely it was one of the Norman/Jarman/Williams trio on the fifth floor or some other TSBD employee – BUT NOT ABOUT THE GUY WITH THE RIFLE.
This is not to pretend there are no discrepancies. Baker described encountering Oswald in the lunchroom in what sounds like the overshirt. Mrs. Reid later encountered him in the V-neck t-shirt. God knows what was actually going on, but it is simply absurd to pretend, as Dan does, that Rowland establishes Someone Other Than Oswald on the sixth floor (let alone the sniper’s nest) or that the “discrepancies” in the fleeting eyewitness accounts are anything other than what we would expect from eyewitnesses in these circumstances. As CTers are wont to do, Dan cherry-picks whatever fits a CT perspective, ignores everything that doesn’t, and further ignores that what he says Makes No Sense in the context of the JFKA as a whole.
FWIW, here is Rowland’s marked-up CE 356:
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version