John Orr's analysis of the shots

[Lance Payette]

What I don't understand is why folks, LNers in particular, become so wedded to a particular narrative that propping it up becomes almost a crusade. Something like Orr's theory is way more interesting and fun.

That last sentence nails the reason why I think that the controversy continues.

OK, that can explain why those with the conspiracy-prone mindset are drawn to the JFKA, but it doesn't explain the phenomenon I'm talking about. I have 60+ years of intimate involvement with ufology and other areas of weirdness. There is simply no parallel to the LN community there. People aren't haunting forums, writing books and building careers around the theme "The UFO phenomenon is all nonsense, just crazies, hoaxes and military craft! There's nothing to it! The Robertson Panel in 1953 and the Condon Study in 1969 nailed it!" Debunkers of this sort - Harvard astronomer Donald Menzel and Aviation Week editor Philip Klass - were few, well-known and almost all government shills. There is no community with the level of emotional attachment to the UFO phenomenon being a Big Nothing that LN zealots seem to have to the LN narrative being correct, as though they are somehow offended and threatened by the notion that it might not be. I do find this quite mysterious. The only other arena in which I have encountered this sort of zealotry is the religious one, which is why the dynamics of the LN-CT debate strike me as very similar to a religious debate. I can get my mind around the CT narrative(s) functioning as a quasi-religion for those with the conspiracy-prone mindset, but why the LN narrative would do so is a genuine mystery to me.

[Tim Nickerson]

OK, that can explain why those with the conspiracy-prone mindset are drawn to the JFKA, but it doesn't explain the phenomenon I'm talking about. I have 60+ years of intimate involvement with ufology and other areas of weirdness. There is simply no parallel to the LN community there. People aren't haunting forums, writing books and building careers around the theme "The UFO phenomenon is all nonsense, just crazies, hoaxes and military craft! There's nothing to it! The Robertson Panel in 1953 and the Condon Study in 1969 nailed it!" Debunkers of this sort - Harvard astronomer Donald Menzel and Aviation Week editor Philip Klass - were few, well-known and almost all government shills. There is no community with the level of emotional attachment to the UFO phenomenon being a Big Nothing that LN zealots seem to have to the LN narrative being correct, as though they are somehow offended and threatened by the notion that it might not be. I do find this quite mysterious. The only other arena in which I have encountered this sort of zealotry is the religious one, which is why the dynamics of the LN-CT debate strike me as very similar to a religious debate. I can get my mind around the CT narrative(s) functioning as a quasi-religion for those with the conspiracy-prone mindset, but why the LN narrative would do so is a genuine mystery to me.

Not far from where I live, as the crow flies.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseSubarticle.asp?ID=168

[Charles Collins]

OK, that can explain why those with the conspiracy-prone mindset are drawn to the JFKA, but it doesn't explain the phenomenon I'm talking about. I have 60+ years of intimate involvement with ufology and other areas of weirdness. There is simply no parallel to the LN community there. People aren't haunting forums, writing books and building careers around the theme "The UFO phenomenon is all nonsense, just crazies, hoaxes and military craft! There's nothing to it! The Robertson Panel in 1953 and the Condon Study in 1969 nailed it!" Debunkers of this sort - Harvard astronomer Donald Menzel and Aviation Week editor Philip Klass - were few, well-known and almost all government shills. There is no community with the level of emotional attachment to the UFO phenomenon being a Big Nothing that LN zealots seem to have to the LN narrative being correct, as though they are somehow offended and threatened by the notion that it might not be. I do find this quite mysterious. The only other arena in which I have encountered this sort of zealotry is the religious one, which is why the dynamics of the LN-CT debate strike me as very similar to a religious debate. I can get my mind around the CT narrative(s) functioning as a quasi-religion for those with the conspiracy-prone mindset, but why the LN narrative would do so is a genuine mystery to me.

I think that, for some folks, the zealotry extends to both sides of the controversy.

LHO was a fanatical zealot, with some other issues, who apparently was so consumed with his misguided beliefs that he appeared to be willing to sacrifice his life. Jack Ruby was so offended by LHO’s actions that he too was apparently willing to give up his life.

Politics and religion are subjects that are often avoided during polite conversation. The main reason is that some people get easily offended when others disagree with their opinions of these matters (which are close to their hearts).

I think that some of the basic elements of both politics and religion are at the basis of the justice system in the USA (and most of the civilized world). I was only 10-years old at the time of the assassination. However, I was old enough to sense and feel the profound sadness; plus sense and feel the entire world being deeply offended by LHO’s actions. Those are feelings that simply do not diminish very much (for me anyway).

I have said it before and will likely say it again, I envision LHO burning eternally in hell with satan eternally taunting him with the fact that so many people do not believe (and never will) that LHO was capable of successfully accomplishing the assassination. For someone with LHO’s ego that taunting would be devastating torture.

So, when we combine elements of politics, religion and justice (into the JFK assassination debate) we are entering a place where zealotry can flourish. Many of us entered this arena out of curiosity after seeing the movie JFK. We wanted to learn the real facts of the case. I think that anyone who keeps an open mind, and equally investigates sources from both sides of the controversy, stands a very good chance of learning the truth. It is usually the open mind that is the most difficult item to maintain. Especially in an arena where zealotry is prevalent.

[Jack Nessan]

Would that be because it differs from YOUR two-shot theory, about which Charles and others here (but not me!) would say and have said the same things? Oh, the ironies abound at JFKA forums. If folks of the caliber of Larry Schnapf think Orr's theory is worth considerably more than a second look, I'm at least going to listen.

Larry Schnapf?  The flaws in the Orr theory are obvious. If he got something right, it was totally accidental. This did explain why the Knotts Lab animation was such a disaster.

Basically, all the three shot scenarios rely on just two shots with a third shot somehow inserted somewhere into the narrative but completely unexplained and lacking any and all proof of its occurrence. Without a doubt attempting to conform to conventional thinking and nothing more. 

Most believe they must have a third shot because they are supposed to have a third shot. Even Josiah Thompson added a third shot from somewhere else after observing the real evidence on the shells, as verified by the FBI, proving there were only two shots fired by LHO. The WC, HSCA, and HSCA sound analysis all doubted the reported number of shots as medias influence. The fact there was only two shots appears over and over throughout the assassination.



It is a huge letdown to know that there were just two shots and LHO did it is the answer to the JFK Assassination given all the years of the hype about a conspiracy. There just isn’t one. 
 
 
 

[Lance Payette]

Not far from where I live, as the crow flies.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseSubarticle.asp?ID=168

Oh, yes, Shag Harbor is legendary - the "Canadian Roswell." It has pretty well defied mundane explanations, as has Roswell.

My special area of interest is the cases from World War II through about 1970 - before the whole Big-Eyed Grays, Alien Abduction stuff and also before the reports could reasonably be attributed to military technology. Many of the best reports practically scream "ET craft," but this is no longer the prevailing theory. The prevailing theory, mine as well, is really more in the vein of "we really have no idea." This is the theme of Stanislaw Lem's great novel Solaris - i.e., if we ever encounter an alien intelligence, we likely will have no idea what it is doing or why and may not even realize we have encountered it.

I had my own close-up encounter in the company of a diehard skeptic in 1971. It certainly looked like a craft, but there were aspects suggesting it was something more mysterious. By pure happenstance, I also happened to be smack-dab in the middle of the Travis Walton abduction case in 1975 and the Hudson Valley sightings in 1984.

But let's get this thread back on track: In 1987, I was in attendance at the MUFON annual conference in Las Vegas when wacky John Lear and scary Bill Cooper revealed - with photos! - that JFK had been killed by Greer because JFK was about to spill the Alien Secret. I later met Cooper, who was gunned down by Apache County sheriff's deputies while I was counsel to the sheriff's office in the neighboring county.

[Lance Payette]

Larry Schnapf?  The flaws in the Orr theory are obvious. If he got something right, it was totally accidental. This did explain why the Knotts Lab animation was such a disaster.

Basically, all the three shot scenarios rely on just two shots with a third shot somehow inserted somewhere into the narrative but completely unexplained and lacking any and all proof of its occurrence. Without a doubt attempting to conform to conventional thinking and nothing more. 

Most believe they must have a third shot because they are supposed to have a third shot. Even Josiah Thompson added a third shot from somewhere else after observing the real evidence on the shells, as verified by the FBI, proving there were only two shots fired by LHO. The WC, HSCA, and HSCA sound analysis all doubted the reported number of shots as medias influence. The fact there was only two shots appears over and over throughout the assassination.



It is a huge letdown to know that there were just two shots and LHO did it is the answer to the JFK Assassination given all the years of the hype about a conspiracy. There just isn’t one.

Surely you are sharp enough to see the irony here? As stated previously, I read Phantom Shot and found it plausible. Alas, it does not seem to have caused so much as a fart ripple in the small pond of the JFKA research community. Does that not seem odd if it's all so "obvious"? Why would the LN community be so disinterested? Moreover, I see you being attacked on threads here with the same disdain and dismissiveness that you express toward Schnapf, Orr and many participants here. Isn't this just all business as usual in the wacky, quasi-religious world of JFKA debate?

Orr and Schnapf have hit upon what has always seemed to me the most plausible theory IF THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY. Hence, I am willing to listen, just as I am willing to listen to the three-shot LN theory and the two-shot LN theory but not so much the Greer-did-it theory, the Harvey & Lee theory, the LBJ/CIA/FBI/DPD/Yada Yada-did-it-theory, the Mossad-did-it theory, the KGB-did-it theory or umpteen other conspiracy theories that are not, in my opinion, within the ballpark of plausibility.

To address Charles' point, I was raised in a completely apolitical household. I'm not aware that my parents ever voted and am pretty sure they didn't. I was ten at the time of the 1960 election and recall absolutely no discussion or interest in either JFK or Nixon. I was 13 when JFK was assassinated. It meant nothing to me but a couple of days off from school. I was neither happy nor sad nor even particularly interested. Ditto with MLK and RFK; perhaps I should be embarrassed to admit it, but none of it meant diddly squat to me.  The JFKA has never been anything to me but a historical event that is of interest for pretty much the same reasons that UFOs, reincarnation, the Shroud of Turin and lots of other things have always been of interest - for an assassination, it's full of a great deal of almost preternatural weirdness and mystery. As odd as it may seem, I also find Oswald a fascinating and somewhat sympathetic figure, far more interesting than JFK or any other aspect of the JFKA. My interest was revived in 2007 when I visited my fiancé in Minsk, saw Oswald's apartment, learned that her sister and brother-in-law had worked in the same factory and so on and so forth. I have utterly no emotional involvement in the JFKA and truly don't care, except as a matter of curiosity, whether the LN narrative or some conspiracy theory is correct.

[Charles Collins]

Surely you are sharp enough to see the irony here? As stated previously, I read Phantom Shot and found it plausible. Alas, it does not seem to have caused so much as a fart ripple in the small pond of the JFKA research community. Does that not seem odd if it's all so "obvious"? Why would the LN community be so disinterested? Moreover, I see you being attacked on threads here with the same disdain and dismissiveness that you express toward Schnapf, Orr and many participants here. Isn't this just all business as usual in the wacky, quasi-religious world of JFKA debate?

Orr and Schnapf have hit upon what has always seemed to me the most plausible theory IF THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY. Hence, I am willing to listen, just as I am willing to listen to the three-shot LN theory and the two-shot LN theory but not so much the Greer-did-it theory, the Harvey & Lee theory, the LBJ/CIA/FBI/DPD/Yada Yada-did-it-theory, the Mossad-did-it theory, the KGB-did-it theory or umpteen other conspiracy theories that are not, in my opinion, within the ballpark of plausibility.

To address Charles' point, I was raised in a completely apolitical household. I'm not aware that my parents ever voted and am pretty sure they didn't. I was ten at the time of the 1960 election and recall absolutely no discussion or interest in either JFK or Nixon. I was 13 when JFK was assassinated. It meant nothing to me but a couple of days off from school. I was neither happy nor sad nor even particularly interested. Ditto with MLK and RFK; perhaps I should be embarrassed to admit it, but none of it meant diddly squat to me.  The JFKA has never been anything to me but a historical event that is of interest for pretty much the same reasons that UFOs, reincarnation, the Shroud of Turin and lots of other things have always been of interest - for an assassination, it's full of a great deal of almost preternatural weirdness and mystery. As odd as it may seem, I also find Oswald a fascinating and somewhat sympathetic figure, far more interesting than JFK or any other aspect of the JFKA. My interest was revived in 2007 when I visited my fiancé in Minsk, saw Oswald's apartment, learned that her sister and brother-in-law had worked in the same factory and so on and so forth. I have utterly no emotional involvement in the JFKA and truly don't care, except as a matter of curiosity, whether the LN narrative or some conspiracy theory is correct.

for an assassination, it's full of a great deal of almost preternatural weirdness and mystery.


Please give us some examples of what aspects of the assassination you consider “almost preternatural weirdness and mystery”. Does the SBT still appear to be that unnatural and mysterious to you?


According to Google:

The preternatural (or praeternatural) is that which appears outside, beside or beyond (Latin: præter) the natural.

[Lance Payette]

for an assassination, it's full of a great deal of almost preternatural weirdness and mystery.


Please give us some examples of what aspects of the assassination you consider “almost preternatural weirdness and mystery”. Does the SBT still appear to be that unnatural and mysterious to you?


According to Google:

The preternatural (or praeternatural) is that which appears outside, beside or beyond (Latin: præter) the natural.

Charles, surely you jest. If they were tripping on LSD, Agatha Christie, Arthur Conan Doyle and Damon Runyan together on their best day couldn't have come up with Oswald's life story, the bizarre events of Dealey Plaza, the Tippit murder, Ruby's life and offing of Oswald, the Parkland fiasco, the autopsy follies, and the ensuing 60 years of brouhaha with 25 mutually exclusive conspiracy theories.

"Beyond the natural"? Well, yeah, I'd say so. Preternatural in the sense of "You couldn't make this stuff up."