The Assassination was Sloppy and Amateurish

[Dr Alan Howard Davis]

The assassination was neither sloppy or amateurish - but slick and professional. It didn't matter where the bullets from Oswald gun ended up as long as they were recoverable -to implicate him. The professional gunman behind the picket fence did his job but needed a distraction from the shooter in the TSBD to be able to escape. The shooter (not Oswald) in the TSBD was wearing a white (look at me!) top -which is certainly not in the the sniper's handbook - he wanted to be seen!!

[Royell Storing]

  Despite whatever Holland and his railroad crew might have mistaken for "smoke", I am inclined to Not believe a shooter would confine himself inside of a parking lot that was Jammed with cars. The avenues of escape are extremely limited and any movement among those stationary/parked cars would stand out like a sore thumb. I am inclined to believe that a shooter was on the OUTSIDE of the picket fence in the general area of Badge Man. There was/still is a large tree hugging the picket fence there. That tree is between the picket fence and The Steps/Concrete Walkway leading into the Pergola Shelter. There is walking space between that large tree and the picket fence. A shooter could easily be positioned between the picket fence and that tree. All of that area is also buried in very dark shadow. This area provides a shooter several avenues of exit. A shooter OUTSIDE of the picket fence in the general area of Badge Man needs to be considered. Same goes for Black Dog Man. Maybe the Black Dog Man is actually standing very close to the OUTSIDE of the Picket Fence on Willis 5. 

[Tom Graves]

The assassination was neither sloppy or amateurish - but slick and professional. It didn't matter where the bullets from Oswald gun ended up as long as they were recoverable -to implicate him. The professional gunman behind the picket fence did his job but needed a distraction from the shooter in the TSBD to be able to escape. The shooter (not Oswald) in the TSBD was wearing a white (look at me!) top - which is certainly not in the sniper's handbook - he wanted to be seen!!

How many bad guys do you figure were involved, altogether, in the planning, the patsying, the shooting, the getting-away, and the all-important (and ongoing!!!) cover up?

Just a few, or oodles and gobs?

[Dr Alan Howard Davis]

just one American citizen

[Dan O'meara]

The assassination was neither sloppy or amateurish - but slick and professional. It didn't matter where the bullets from Oswald gun ended up as long as they were recoverable -to implicate him. The professional gunman behind the picket fence did his job but needed a distraction from the shooter in the TSBD to be able to escape. The shooter (not Oswald) in the TSBD was wearing a white (look at me!) top -which is certainly not in the the sniper's handbook - he wanted to be seen!!

"The assassination was neither sloppy or amateurish - but slick and professional."

Okay, a strong opening statement - the assassination was "slick and professional".
Detailed arguments and supporting evidence have been put forward in this thread demonstrating that the assassination was sloppy and amateurish. It's a pity Dr Alan doesn't deal with a single point but not to worry, I'm sure his arguments supporting his belief that it was a professional job will shine through.

"It didn't matter where the bullets from Oswald gun ended up as long as they were recoverable -to implicate him."

Errrm...does anyone know what this means?
It didn't matter where the bullets ended up?
What?
Surely it was the rifle that was used to implicate Oswald.
And the fact he left the TSBD building.
Maybe Dr Alan can expand on this statement because it's hard to understand
A] What it means.
B] How it supports his claim that the assassination was professional.

"The professional gunman behind the picket fence did his job but needed a distraction from the shooter in the TSBD to be able to escape."

As has already been dealt with earlier in the thread, there was no shooter behind the picket fence, so let's not bother with that.
I'm more interested in this "distraction". Surely the shooter in the TSBD building was trying to assassinate JFK, not trying to cause a distraction.

"The shooter (not Oswald) in the TSBD was wearing a white (look at me!) top -which is certainly not in the the sniper's handbook - he wanted to be seen!!"

Hmmmm...the shooter in the TSBD building wanted to be seen?
I'd really like to hear the logic supporting this statement.
How does this help the shooter in the TSBD building escape?
How is this "slick"?
Doesn't the fact that the shooter in the TSBD building was wearing a white shirt demonstrate that it wasn't a professional hit?

[Tom Graves]

Just one American citizen

Really?

You mean evil, evil, evil James JESUS Angleton did the shooting, too?

[Royell Storing]

"The assassination was neither sloppy or amateurish - but slick and professional."

Okay, a strong opening statement - the assassination was "slick and professional".
Detailed arguments and supporting evidence have been put forward in this thread demonstrating that the assassination was sloppy and amateurish. It's a pity Dr Alan doesn't deal with a single point but not to worry, I'm sure his arguments supporting his belief that it was a professional job will shine through.

"It didn't matter where the bullets from Oswald gun ended up as long as they were recoverable -to implicate him."

Errrm...does anyone know what this means?
It didn't matter where the bullets ended up?
What?
Surely it was the rifle that was used to implicate Oswald.
And the fact he left the TSBD building.
Maybe Dr Alan can expand on this statement because it's hard to understand
A] What it means.
B] How it supports his claim that the assassination was professional.

"The professional gunman behind the picket fence did his job but needed a distraction from the shooter in the TSBD to be able to escape."

As has already been dealt with earlier in the thread, there was no shooter behind the picket fence, so let's not bother with that.
I'm more interested in this "distraction". Surely the shooter in the TSBD building was trying to assassinate JFK, not trying to cause a distraction.

"The shooter (not Oswald) in the TSBD was wearing a white (look at me!) top -which is certainly not in the the sniper's handbook - he wanted to be seen!!"

Hmmmm...the shooter in the TSBD building wanted to be seen?
I'd really like to hear the logic supporting this statement.
How does this help the shooter in the TSBD building escape?
How is this "slick"?
Doesn't the fact that the shooter in the TSBD building was wearing a white shirt demonstrate that it wasn't a professional hit?

   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.

[Tom Graves]

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.

Storing,

Weren't T-shirts usually white in 1963?