The Assassination was Sloppy and Amateurish

[Dr Alan Howard Davis]

   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.

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]

"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.

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]

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.

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]

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’.

"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?

[Royell Storing]

  A shooter positioned OUTSIDE of the N-S section of picket fencing makes a lot more sense. This possible shooter would generally be in the area of the Large Tree/Black Dog Man/Gordon Arnold/Badge Man area.

[Charles Collins]

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).

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.

Knowing the difference and being able to testify whether or not it was one or the other are two different things.


Mr. FISCHER - He was in the---as you're looking toward that window, he was in the lower right portion of the window. He seemed to be sitting a little forward.
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.


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).

No, Ronald B. Fischer was an eye witness and I have posted his testimony regarding this question. It isn't only me.

[Dr Alan Howard Davis]

"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?

Oh dear - you believe I came on the forum not thinking my ideas would be challenged!! It is absolutely why I came on the forum -to challenge and be challenged, but hopefully with a level of decorum. I am not going to call what you believe 'nonsense' - just misjudged or misinformed in my opinion. 'Nonsense' are conspiracy theories with no basis in fact such as the 'fake' moon landings or the flat earth. We all share the same passion to find the truth about the assassination, but our ideas differ because there are so many holes in the information available. We are all seeking to 'fill the gaps' with our own ideas, very many that are plausible if not conclusive. Debate is healthy and helpful and I hope it can continue to be friendly and informative.