John Orr's analysis of the shots

[Lance Payette]

OK, I'm sick of this thread, too, and apparently no gung-ho CTer is going to defend Orr.

Final word from me:

I have now forced myself to watch the entire Orr video I posted. This is clearly Orr as influenced by Larry Schnapf - who, I must admit, has revealed himself at the Ed Forum to be somewhat more in the wacky vein than I had previously appreciated. I reject what Orr says in the video almost in its entirety.

The posited conspiracy is so elaborate, convoluted, insanely risky and un-Mafia-like that we’re once again back in the land of the Three Stooges. I can accept a four-shot, Mafia-organized conspiracy with Oswald believing he was participating in a pro-Castro operation, but I cannot accept this as being even in the ballpark of plausibility.

Stay with me here: Oswald, via family connections with the Marcello operation (Marguerite and the Murrets), was a knowing recruit in February of 1963, likely promised wads of cash. He may not have been an enthusiastic recruit, but he knew he could not refuse Marcello and live. Everything after February was a sham to make Oswald the perfect patsy – the rifle purchase, the Backyard Photos, the attempt on Walker, and all the faux pro-Cuba activities including the trip to Mexico City. The assassination was planned by Bannister, Ferrie and the usual Cubans. Marcello owned the Carousel Club and Ruby was his point man in Dallas, heavily involved in the planning and responsible for making sure the plan was implemented. All the wads of cash Ruby used to flash were actually Marcello’s money. Marcello caught Ruby skimming from the till and pulled him into the JFKA on the basis of this leverage. He and Oswald may have met in Oak Cliff Park as needed. The plan was for both Oswald and the pro in the County Records Building to escape. Everything went awry when Oswald killed Tippit and was apprehended. When Oswald said he was a patsy, he meant a patsy of the DPD but Marcello thought it meant Oswald was going to squawk and Ruby thus was assigned to silence him.

Oh, Jesus, I can’t even keep it all straight or describe it with a straight face. Am I the only person who gives the Mafia more credit for professionalism than this? Do people of the intelligence level of Schnapf and Orr seriously think Marcello, Trafficante and Giancana would place their lives in the hands of erratic, low-level clowns like Ferrie, Oswald and Ruby, not to mention Bannister and others? Are you kidding me? This is ad hoc, after-the-fact speculation to the max, so full of holes and obvious “What sense would that have made?” red flags that I am simply agog.

I thus remain to be convinced of a Mafia-organized conspiracy, but it’s going to have to be a tight, professional, minimal-risk operation in which Curly, Larry and Moe played no role. Pretty much a garden variety Mafia hit, with Oswald as a patsy who posed no risk even if caught.

FWIW, Orr stands by his 1995 analysis, “which no one has ever refuted.”

[Tim Nickerson]

OK, I'm sick of this thread, too, and apparently no gung-ho CTer is going to defend Orr.

Final word from me:

I have now forced myself to watch the entire Orr video I posted. This is clearly Orr as influenced by Larry Schnapf - who, I must admit, has revealed himself at the Ed Forum to be somewhat more in the wacky vein than I had previously appreciated. I reject what Orr says in the video almost in its entirety.

The posited conspiracy is so elaborate, convoluted, insanely risky and un-Mafia-like that we’re once again back in the land of the Three Stooges. I can accept a four-shot, Mafia-organized conspiracy with Oswald believing he was participating in a pro-Castro operation, but I cannot accept this as being even in the ballpark of plausibility.

Stay with me here: Oswald, via family connections with the Marcello operation (Marguerite and the Murrets), was a knowing recruit in February of 1963, likely promised wads of cash. He may not have been an enthusiastic recruit, but he knew he could not refuse Marcello and live. Everything after February was a sham to make Oswald the perfect patsy – the rifle purchase, the Backyard Photos, the attempt on Walker, and all the faux pro-Cuba activities including the trip to Mexico City. The assassination was planned by Bannister, Ferrie and the usual Cubans. Marcello owned the Carousel Club and Ruby was his point man in Dallas, heavily involved in the planning and responsible for making sure the plan was implemented. All the wads of cash Ruby used to flash were actually Marcello’s money. Marcello caught Ruby skimming from the till and pulled him into the JFKA on the basis of this leverage. He and Oswald may have met in Oak Cliff Park as needed. The plan was for both Oswald and the pro in the County Records Building to escape. Everything went awry when Oswald killed Tippit and was apprehended. When Oswald said he was a patsy, he meant a patsy of the DPD but Marcello thought it meant Oswald was going to squawk and Ruby thus was assigned to silence him.

Oh, Jesus, I can’t even keep it all straight or describe it with a straight face. Am I the only person who gives the Mafia more credit for professionalism than this? Do people of the intelligence level of Schnapf and Orr seriously think Marcello, Trafficante and Giancana would place their lives in the hands of erratic, low-level clowns like Ferrie, Oswald and Ruby, not to mention Bannister and others? Are you kidding me? This is ad hoc, after-the-fact speculation to the max, so full of holes and obvious “What sense would that have made?” red flags that I am simply agog.

I thus remain to be convinced of a Mafia-organized conspiracy, but it’s going to have to be a tight, professional, minimal-risk operation in which Curly, Larry and Moe played no role. Pretty much a garden variety Mafia hit, with Oswald as a patsy who posed no risk even if caught.

FWIW, Orr stands by his 1995 analysis, “which no one has ever refuted.”

I like Larry Schnapf, even though I don't really know him. We are Facebook friends. I probed him once on the mock trial of Oswald that he participated in as a defense counsel for Oswald. Other than that, I haven't discussed the assassination with him at all. He seems like a decent fellow. He does believe that Oswald did not kill JFK, and that will never change.  I wasn't aware that he was involved with John Orr's project. That would indicate that he has a wacky streak in him. I haven't watched the Out of the Blank John Orr interview but I have read enough of Orr's "Analysis of Gunshots in Dealey Plaza" report to conclude that there is something seriously wrong with his wiring.

[Jack Nessan]

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.

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?

Plausible? Plausible is a term that is continuously being repeated. Is this use of plausible good or bad?

A ripple in the pond? You would be surprised by what has been written and stated to us and what has transpired as a result of what is written in the book. For most people it is a non-event. Basically, huh- I'll be damned. What's for lunch?

You read the book. My experience is most Lawyers like it because they cannot shoot holes in it. The president of the Montana Bar Association wrote an article supporting it as did one of the Montana Supreme Court Justices. The indentation on the shells noted by Josiah Thompson in Six Seconds in Dallas proves it. Did you read pages 140 –146 and the foot notes on page 173 in Six Seconds in Dallas? 

Simply put, understanding dry firing is the key to understanding the JFK assassination. 

-------------------

Irony? I have been consistently made aware of the irony. The irony for me is that the American public first needs to be educated about the assassination to understand why two shots vs three shots is important. A question that is often asked. The JFKA Community is a small group of people who cannot get out of their own way. When they are gone two shots will be the accepted answer and is already taking hold. It is too obvious to be ignored. 

99% of America has no idea why two vs three shots are important. The JFKA community is currently and has been trying to create an earlier shot for a long time, in an attempt to lengthen the assassination time span. That tells you both CT and LN people understand three shots is a huge problem. With two shots there is no problem. The 99% of Americans have zero understanding of why three shots is a problem. You have to understand the cycle time of the carcano vs the Zapruder film.

---------------------

What I see? I could be wrong but what I see is an experienced and seasoned attorney looking for common ground or a negotiated settlement between CT and LN factions, to make a compromise solution or in this instance an answer to what appears to be a complex problem of “was it a conspiracy or not.”  That will not work with this issue. There is only one answer, it is black and white, and all others are rejected. 

You have demonstrated you are well read on all facets of the subject but for some reason you are waffling between them unable to decide what is the answer. Instead, you appear to be trying to pick and choose different aspects of the individual theories comprising the assassination in an attempt to reach a middle ground answer. It is alright to make a decision. What is the answer? There really is a black and white answer. What do you think happened in that 6 seconds in Dallas?
------------------------
As far as being attacked, come one come all. Once you see the answer you cannot unsee it.

[Tim Nickerson]

The indentation on the shells noted by Josiah Thompson in Six Seconds in Dallas proves it. Did you read pages 140 –146 and the foot notes on page 173 in Six Seconds in Dallas? 

Simply put, understanding dry firing is the key to understanding the JFK assassination.

I read pages 140 to 146 and the footnotes on page 173. Thompson falsely claims that "the only mark borne by the dented case, linking it to Oswald's rifle, could not have been incurred on November 22".

The dent in CE-543 was duplicated numerous times by the HSCA firearms panel when ejecting spent shell casings from the rifle.

[Jack Nessan]

I read pages 140 to 146 and the footnotes on page 173. Thompson falsely claims that "the only mark borne by the dented case, linking it to Oswald's rifle, could not have been incurred on November 22".

The dent in CE-543 was duplicated numerous times by the HSCA firearms panel when ejecting spent shell casings from the rifle.

The dent in CE-543 was duplicated numerous times by the HSCA firearms panel when ejecting spent shell casings from the rifle.

No- The HSCA never duplicated the dent.

Wrong mark, Josiah was referring to the mark left by the magazine follower, not the dented lip.

Additionally, the HSCA never produced a shell with the dent like CE 543.

JFK Exhibit F-100: Four Shells from a Firing Test Conducted by the HSCA Firearms Panel. Note that these shells are only slightly deformed and have no dent that resembles the dent in CE 543

The House Select Committee used a different Carcano, not LHO's

Thompson, who viewed all the shells having been test fired in LHO’s carcano, made no mention of other shells with a dented lip

 

[Charles Collins]

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."

Okay, I was thinking that there were some aspects that you believed couldn’t be explained by natural means. My bad. What you appear to be actually saying is that it is interesting because it is out of the ordinary. I would agree with that. But I cannot think of any aspects that cannot be explained by natural means.

[Charles Collins]

OK, I'm sick of this thread, too, and apparently no gung-ho CTer is going to defend Orr.

Final word from me:

I have now forced myself to watch the entire Orr video I posted. This is clearly Orr as influenced by Larry Schnapf - who, I must admit, has revealed himself at the Ed Forum to be somewhat more in the wacky vein than I had previously appreciated. I reject what Orr says in the video almost in its entirety.

The posited conspiracy is so elaborate, convoluted, insanely risky and un-Mafia-like that we’re once again back in the land of the Three Stooges. I can accept a four-shot, Mafia-organized conspiracy with Oswald believing he was participating in a pro-Castro operation, but I cannot accept this as being even in the ballpark of plausibility.

Stay with me here: Oswald, via family connections with the Marcello operation (Marguerite and the Murrets), was a knowing recruit in February of 1963, likely promised wads of cash. He may not have been an enthusiastic recruit, but he knew he could not refuse Marcello and live. Everything after February was a sham to make Oswald the perfect patsy – the rifle purchase, the Backyard Photos, the attempt on Walker, and all the faux pro-Cuba activities including the trip to Mexico City. The assassination was planned by Bannister, Ferrie and the usual Cubans. Marcello owned the Carousel Club and Ruby was his point man in Dallas, heavily involved in the planning and responsible for making sure the plan was implemented. All the wads of cash Ruby used to flash were actually Marcello’s money. Marcello caught Ruby skimming from the till and pulled him into the JFKA on the basis of this leverage. He and Oswald may have met in Oak Cliff Park as needed. The plan was for both Oswald and the pro in the County Records Building to escape. Everything went awry when Oswald killed Tippit and was apprehended. When Oswald said he was a patsy, he meant a patsy of the DPD but Marcello thought it meant Oswald was going to squawk and Ruby thus was assigned to silence him.

Oh, Jesus, I can’t even keep it all straight or describe it with a straight face. Am I the only person who gives the Mafia more credit for professionalism than this? Do people of the intelligence level of Schnapf and Orr seriously think Marcello, Trafficante and Giancana would place their lives in the hands of erratic, low-level clowns like Ferrie, Oswald and Ruby, not to mention Bannister and others? Are you kidding me? This is ad hoc, after-the-fact speculation to the max, so full of holes and obvious “What sense would that have made?” red flags that I am simply agog.

I thus remain to be convinced of a Mafia-organized conspiracy, but it’s going to have to be a tight, professional, minimal-risk operation in which Curly, Larry and Moe played no role. Pretty much a garden variety Mafia hit, with Oswald as a patsy who posed no risk even if caught.

FWIW, Orr stands by his 1995 analysis, “which no one has ever refuted.”

Some of the brightest people I have known have been consumed with alcoholism. I am beginning to believe that the JFK assassination fascination can be just as addicting.

[Lance Payette]

Some of the brightest people I have known have been consumed with alcoholism. I am beginning to believe that the JFK assassination fascination can be just as addicting.

Not that anyone needs to know this, but my dad was a brilliant, self-destructive alcoholic who was committed to the state sanitarium twice. He died in 1971, and in 2005 I managed to get the state hospital to track down the records of some of his sessions. They said his IQ was off the charts but he simply couldn't cope with the ordinariness of day-to-day living.

I think this is common in the CT community, not just with the JFKA but other areas of weirdness as well: The mundane explanations are just too damn DULL (although even the LN narrative is scarcely dull).

Tink Thompson, who is clearly brilliant (a former philosophy professor and the author of a serious biography of Soren Kierkegaard), described the JFKA as a "virus," and I think that's about right.