The Assassination was Sloppy and Amateurish

[Lance Payette]

Yet another post devoid of content.

"Show me a genuinely plausible, evidence-based theory and I'll listen..."

 
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.

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:

[Zeon Mason]

I’m running out of alternative scenarios for a conspirator shooter other than Oswald if the premise is that this was a sloppy assassination.

I think it’s reasonable to conclude that this shooting from the 72ft height SE corner window of TSBD at a moving small target below, with an extra variable of an ever changing vertical plane angle, is not what a typical professional shooter would choose as an ideal scenario, especially given the professional sniper creed: one shot one kill”.

But the reason I’m still on the fence that This sloppy 3 shots, 1 shot completely missing the limo , scenario fits Oswald like a glove, is because of the witnesses Dorothy Garner , Carolyn Arnold and Arnold Rowland.

Garner on the 4th floor, exited the 4th floor office door and had LOS to the rear staircase possibly as early as 30 secs post shots. She made statements of having followed Adams and Stiles “almost immediately” and that she was “right behind them” and that when she got over to stand near the west window by the staircase, she “HEARD THEM” going down the stairs.

I’d like to think that perhaps Garner  was just mistaken about both her timing on following A&S and that what she heard when she got near the stairs was just the “ Noise” of an Oswald trampling  down creaking wooden stairs.

But I don’t understand why Garner would state such a specific phrase as “I heard THEM” if it was just some creaking noise of wooden steps which she had heard. And to have missed seeing Oswald on the 4th floor landing, Garner would have had to wait at least 1 minute before following A&S, which seems to me quite longer than “immediately following” or “ right behind”.
( However, IDK if  Garners  perception of time was affected by the stress of the situation)

Then there’s Carolyn Arnold who stated she saw Oswald SEATED in the 2nd floor lunchroom at 12:15pm. There was a clock on the wall of the 2nd floor lunchroom and I’m not sure if anyone ever  asked Carolyn if she actually saw the clock thus establishing her 12:15 sighting or if it  was just Carolyn’s estimate which could be +/- 3 minutes. IDK even if the clock was in sync with the TSBD roof top clock.

But to further compound this confusion is Arnold Rowland able to see a rifle  with a LARGE scope on it, from a distance of approx 250 ft away and while Rowland was looking upwards at the man standing with the “hunting” rifle “ at the ready” position 72 ft high up at a FULLY OPEN 6th floor SW corner window at 12:15, while Carolyn was supposedly seeing Oswald at 12:15 in the 2nd floor lunchroom.

Yet Euins and Brennan , observing a rifleman at the 6th floor SE corner window of TSBD, did NOT see any scope even though they both were  only about 72ft away ( vertical angle distance looking upwards) Neither did Malcolm Couch nor Bob Jackson see any scope on the rifle which they both saw still sticking out the same SE window  several seconds AFTER the last shot fired.

If this was some professional shooter then the only possibility that might be plausible to explain the exhibition of the rifle by the shooter both just before (12:15) and for several seconds after firing 3 shots (12:30) , was that it was intentional and meant to maximize probability that the general impression of majority of witness would be that the shots came from TSBD. The 3 shots, 2 hits and last shot fired high , a complete miss of the entire limo , and the shooter still displaying the rifle sticking it OUT the window for several seconds AFTER that 3rd shot fired (after Z313) high towards Tague at the Triple Underpass, all part of someone’s bizarre idea that this was necessary to complete the framing of Oswald.

[Dan O'meara]

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:

"Because I am a Serious and Dedicated Researcher"

 
The only thing Lance is Dedicated to are the findings of the Warren Commission Sham which he defends like the good, little Zealot he is.
Having dealt with him before I recognise a pattern emerging.
This last post has a familiar, slightly unhinged flavour, full of falsehoods (I don't like to use the word "Lies") and misrepresentation. His next couple of posts will be full-on ranting and, at some point after that, he will run away.
I will have to respond to Lance's post with two of my own. The first one will focus on correcting the more flagrant falsehoods and misrepresentations, the second one will deal with any evidence-based 'arguments' he puts forward :

"eyewitness testimony is the best of all evidence"

I have never had this approach to evidence.
When Lance attributes this to me it is not based on anything I've ever posted. He is basically making it up (Lying/Misrepresenting).
I have always contested, particularly in "The First Shot" thread, that eye-witness testimony is "secondary" to physical evidence, especially film/photographic evidence.
Take the Zapruder film, for example. If an eye-witness describes something that is not seen in the film it is obvious we must treat the film as 'primary' evidence in this instance.
However, there are occasions when we must consider witness testimony on its own merits and this is exactly what is happening when we are considering who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the shooting. There is no physical evidence telling us who was on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting so we must rely solely on eye-witness testimony.
Many Nutters have convinced themselves that, because Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th floor, it is proof Oswald was on the 6th floor during the shooting. It is not.
It is circumstantial evidence supporting the theory that Oswald took the shots. Nothing more.
There is no film/photographic evidence showing anyone identifiable on the 6th floor so we must rely on eye-witness testimony.
Lance should be aware of this.

When I consider the testimonial evidence regarding who was on the 6th floor around the time of the shooting, I interpret it in the most straight-forward, honest and common sense way I can. That is how I formed my opinion about the case.
Unlike Lance, who has had the Warren Commission do all his thinking for him, who has had all his opinions about the case provided for him, and who has swallowed down their findings hook, line and sinker.

"Charles has politely and thoroughly refuted Dan's arguments."

This has not happened and it is a great example of how Lance's Delusion blinds him.
I welcome anyone to have a look through the discussion me and Charles had in this thread and decide for themselves whether or not my arguments were refuted or strengthened.
The crux of the argument boils down to what does "open-neck shirt" mean.
It is my contention that this referred to a regular shirt with a collar and buttons whereas Charles argued that it referred to the t-shirt Oswald was wearing.
I did a very simple thing and Googled - "What is an open-necked shirt?" Google AI made it clear that this phrase was synonymous with an open collar shirt, a regular shirt with a collar and buttons, just as I was arguing.
I asked Charles to do a very simple thing (I ask Lance to do the same) - Google "open-neck shirt" and look at the Images it threw up.
When I did this, of the first 100 images displayed, only 1 was a t-shirt with no collar. The other 99 images were of a collared shirt with buttons.
The point I was making was that the most straight-forward, common sense interpretation of what the eye-witnesses were saying was that the shooter was wearing a very light coloured shirt with a collar and buttons, and that, if one accepted this common sense interpretation, it meant the shooter was wearing clothes that Oswald was not wearing. Lance's interpretation, that the witnesses were describing a white t-shirt, is a really strained interpretation, bordering on desperate, and clearly informed by his blind need to have Oswald as the shooter.
This is from REPLY#156:

"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."



"THERE IS NO DOUBT, screams Dan. It was Someone Other Than Oswald with a rifle. Eyewitnesses are never wrong."

This is a good example of the slightly unhinged tone Lance's posts start to take on after a while.
It is usually followed by a full-on breakdown.
Just for the record, this is what I actually posted about the eye-witness testimony concerning what the shooter was wearing - "It is strong circumstantial evidence that the man on the 6th floor was not Oswald."
Eye-witnesses describing the shooter wearing clothes Oswald wasn't wearing IS strong circumstantial evidence that the shooter wasn't Oswald and that's all it is. I am perfectly within my rights to make this extremely reasonable observation. It isn't proof of anything but it certainly must inform a persons opinion.
Lance's slightly unhinged statements actually reflect his own approach to this case.

"I merely added that Dan blithely ignores the massive factual and logical issues raised by Someone Other Than Oswald being the gunman"

This is just a lie...sorry...a falsehood.
There's no need to get to involved with it.
I am more than willing to explore and debate every single piece of evidence regarding this issue.
It is such a hypocritical thing to post it's almost funny.
I will gladly debate Lance on any aspect of this case regarding who was on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting.
If there's one thing that's sure to make a blowhard disappear, it's having to actually back up their delusional beliefs.

"...a JFKA Flat Earther as I’ve suggested."

This is such a traditional Nutter strategy.
If you question the delusions of a Nutter like Lance then you also believe in UFO's, Bigfoot, Flat Earth etc.
It's a way of dismissing an argument before it even takes place.
Another favourite strategy is to lump all CTer's together, as if all conspiracy theories were actually one theory.
The truth is that there are many theories about the assassination of JFK (JFKA theories) and the Lone Nut theory is just one of these but Nutters don't seem to accept this truth (mainly because they don't accept that their own theory is actually a theory, they believe it's a fact). My own theory is my own theory arrived at through my own research and interpretation of the evidence and it is an on-going, developing theory but so often I'm expected by Nutters to answer for other conspiracy theories as if they were my own!

"...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."

I've never claimed anything remotely like this. It's more fabrication on Lance's behalf.
Rowland's observations do not 'establish' anything and eye-witness testimony is notoriously fallible.
Isn't it great that this Serious and Dedicated researcher just makes sh*t up and posts it as if he were some kind of oracle dispensing wisdom.

"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."

More sh*t from the oracle.
But there is a point worth making.
There is a vast amount of evidence in this case and often it can be contradictory evidence.
No matter what theory we choose there will be evidence that contradicts it. We are all open to the charge of cherry-picking evidence that suits our theory but how can we not do that!
The very moment we have decided on a specific course in this case we are favouring some evidence over other evidence. This cannot be avoided. This doesn't mean we are cherry-picking or ignoring anything.
For Lance to imagine he is above all this speaks to the strength of his Delusion.

[Tom Graves]

"Because I am a Serious and Dedicated Researcher"

 
The only thing Lance is Dedicated to are the findings of the Warren Commission Sham which he defends like the good, little Zealot he is.
Having dealt with him before I recognise a pattern emerging.
This last post has a familiar, slightly unhinged flavour, full of falsehoods (I don't like to use the word "Lies") and misrepresentation. His next couple of posts will be full-on ranting and, at some point after that, he will run away.
I will have to respond to Lance's post with two of my own. The first one will focus on correcting the more flagrant falsehoods and misrepresentations, the second one will deal with any evidence-based 'arguments' he puts forward :

"eyewitness testimony is the best of all evidence"

I have never had this approach to evidence.
When Lance attributes this to me it is not based on anything I've ever posted. He is basically making it up (Lying/Misrepresenting).
I have always contested, particularly in "The First Shot" thread, that eye-witness testimony is "secondary" to physical evidence, especially film/photographic evidence.
Take the Zapruder film, for example. If an eye-witness describes something that is not seen in the film it is obvious we must treat the film as 'primary' evidence in this instance.
However, there are occasions when we must consider witness testimony on its own merits and this is exactly what is happening when we are considering who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the shooting. There is no physical evidence telling us who was on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting so we must rely solely on eye-witness testimony.
Many Nutters have convinced themselves that, because Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th floor, it is proof Oswald was on the 6th floor during the shooting. It is not.
It is circumstantial evidence supporting the theory that Oswald took the shots. Nothing more.
There is no film/photographic evidence showing anyone identifiable on the 6th floor so we must rely on eye-witness testimony.
Lance should be aware of this.

When I consider the testimonial evidence regarding who was on the 6th floor around the time of the shooting, I interpret it in the most straight-forward, honest and common sense way I can. That is how I formed my opinion about the case.
Unlike Lance, who has had the Warren Commission do all his thinking for him, who has had all his opinions about the case provided for him, and who has swallowed down their findings hook, line and sinker.

"Charles has politely and thoroughly refuted Dan's arguments."

This has not happened and it is a great example of how Lance's Delusion blinds him.
I welcome anyone to have a look through the discussion me and Charles had in this thread and decide for themselves whether or not my arguments were refuted or strengthened.
The crux of the argument boils down to what does "open-neck shirt" mean.
It is my contention that this referred to a regular shirt with a collar and buttons whereas Charles argued that it referred to the t-shirt Oswald was wearing.
I did a very simple thing and Googled - "What is an open-necked shirt?" Google AI made it clear that this phrase was synonymous with an open collar shirt, a regular shirt with a collar and buttons, just as I was arguing.
I asked Charles to do a very simple thing (I ask Lance to do the same) - Google "open-neck shirt" and look at the Images it threw up.
When I did this, of the first 100 images displayed, only 1 was a t-shirt with no collar. The other 99 images were of a collared shirt with buttons.
The point I was making was that the most straight-forward, common sense interpretation of what the eye-witnesses were saying was that the shooter was wearing a very light coloured shirt with a collar and buttons, and that, if one accepted this common sense interpretation, it meant the shooter was wearing clothes that Oswald was not wearing. Lance's interpretation, that the witnesses were describing a white t-shirt, is a really strained interpretation, bordering on desperate, and clearly informed by his blind need to have Oswald as the shooter.
This is from REPLY#156:

"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."



"THERE IS NO DOUBT, screams Dan. It was Someone Other Than Oswald with a rifle. Eyewitnesses are never wrong."

This is a good example of the slightly unhinged tone Lance's posts start to take on after a while.
It is usually followed by a full-on breakdown.
Just for the record, this is what I actually posted about the eye-witness testimony concerning what the shooter was wearing - "It is strong circumstantial evidence that the man on the 6th floor was not Oswald."
Eye-witnesses describing the shooter wearing clothes Oswald wasn't wearing IS strong circumstantial evidence that the shooter wasn't Oswald and that's all it is. I am perfectly within my rights to make this extremely reasonable observation. It isn't proof of anything but it certainly must inform a persons opinion.
Lance's slightly unhinged statements actually reflect his own approach to this case.

"I merely added that Dan blithely ignores the massive factual and logical issues raised by Someone Other Than Oswald being the gunman"

This is just a lie...sorry...a falsehood.
There's no need to get to involved with it.
I am more than willing to explore and debate every single piece of evidence regarding this issue.
It is such a hypocritical thing to post it's almost funny.
I will gladly debate Lance on any aspect of this case regarding who was on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting.
If there's one thing that's sure to make a blowhard disappear, it's having to actually back up their delusional beliefs.

"...a JFKA Flat Earther as I’ve suggested."

This is such a traditional Nutter strategy.
If you question the delusions of a Nutter like Lance then you also believe in UFO's, Bigfoot, Flat Earth etc.
It's a way of dismissing an argument before it even takes place.
Another favourite strategy is to lump all CTer's together, as if all conspiracy theories were actually one theory.
The truth is that there are many theories about the assassination of JFK (JFKA theories) and the Lone Nut theory is just one of these but Nutters don't seem to accept this truth (mainly because they don't accept that their own theory is actually a theory, they believe it's a fact). My own theory is my own theory arrived at through my own research and interpretation of the evidence and it is an on-going, developing theory but so often I'm expected by Nutters to answer for other conspiracy theories as if they were my own!

"...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."

I've never claimed anything remotely like this. It's more fabrication on Lance's behalf.
Rowland's observations do not 'establish' anything and eye-witness testimony is notoriously fallible.
Isn't it great that this Serious and Dedicated researcher just makes sh*t up and posts it as if he were some kind of oracle dispensing wisdom.

"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."[/b]

More sh*t from the oracle.
But there is a point worth making.
There is a vast amount of evidence in this case and often it can be contradictory evidence.
No matter what theory we choose there will be evidence that contradicts it. We are all open to the charge of cherry-picking evidence that suits our theory but how can we not do that!
The very moment we have decided on a specific course in this case we are favouring some evidence over other evidence. This cannot be avoided. This doesn't mean we are cherry-picking or ignoring anything.
For Lance to imagine he is above all this speaks to the strength of his Delusion.

O'Meara,

You sound . . . . . triggered.

[Dan O'meara]

O'Meara,

You sound . . . . . triggered.

Run along Pinko, the adults are talking.

[Tom Graves]

Run along Pinko, the adults are talking.

You're the one who's spewing the anti-CIA Kremlin line, dude.

[Richard Smith]

Imagine if this was the standard in any other criminal case:

"There is no physical evidence telling us who was on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting so we must rely solely on eye-witness testimony.
Many Nutters have convinced themselves that, because Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th floor, it is proof Oswald was on the 6th floor during the shooting. It is not.  It is circumstantial evidence supporting the theory that Oswald took the shots. Nothing more.
There is no film/photographic evidence showing anyone identifiable on the 6th floor so we must rely on eye-witness testimony."

Oswald's rifle is found at the scene of a shooting.  It is found on the same floor from which several witnesses saw a rifle in the window at the moment of the assassination.  Oswald's prints are the only ones found on that rifle.  Its serial number links it to him.  There is no evidence that his rifle was in the possession of any other person. His prints are also on the boxes in front of the window from which the shots were fired. His prints are also on a bag found next to the SN for which there is no other explanation other than being used to carry the rifle.  Oswald has no credible alibi for the moment of the shooting.  He lies about his ownership of the rifle, flees the crime scene and shoots a police officer.  Oswald provides no explanation for the presence of his rifle on the 6th floor.  In any other case, this would be considered conclusive of his guilt.  Here we learn that there apparently is doubt because there is no film of Oswald committing the crime.  If that is the standard, then it would be impossible to convict almost anyone of a crime because most criminals make some effort to conceal their involvement in a crime.  Very few are dumb enough to allow themselves to be filmed committing a crime.  All the more true in 1963 when there were fewer security cameras and fewer individuals with immediate access to a camera.