The Sportsdrome Gun Range: Mystery or Myth?

[Lance Payette]

This will be my last foray into JFKA research. I had nearly completed a lengthy, journal-quality article on the “Oswald” sightings at the Sportsdrome Gun Range, replete with numerous citations and links, before pulling the plug on myself. This is a greatly condensed summary of my research.

The Sportsdrome Gun Range (not “Sports Drome,” as it is often misspelled) was located at 8000 West Davis on Highway 180 in Grand Prairie, Texas. It was slightly more than seven miles from both Ruth Paine’s home and Oswald’s room on Beckley (not 13 miles as is often misstated, apparently thanks to Gus Russo – whose work on this story is a comedy of factual errors).

The Gun Range was affiliated with the Sportsdrome Speedway, a ¼-mile dirt auto racing track. Both were next to the Yello Belly Drag Strip, which had opened in 1955 and is still in operation. The Speedway opened in 1959 and closed in 1983. The Speedway and Gun Range were both located on leased land.

At the time of the JFKA, the Speedway and Gun Range were both owned by a young couple named Floyd and Virginia Davis. When Floyd testified to the Warren Commission, he was only 32, A guy named James Thompson told the FBI that he had been partners with Floyd in the operation of the Gun Range in the fall of 1962 but had no interest in 1963.

The Gun Range opened for the 1963 deer hunting season on Saturday, October 26, 1963. There is no doubt whatsoever about this date. It is firmly nailed down not only by numerous statements shortly after the JFKA but by the records of the business.

At her Warren Commission appearance, Virginia Davis mentioned a “journal” she had kept that would show the daily visitors. Months later, the Commission wanted the staff to follow this up. Both Virginia and Floyd were reinterviewed by the FBI in September of 1964 and produced all the relevant documents. They had opened what Virginia called their “new business” on October 26, 1963. On that date, they had started asking customers to sign a register so they would have names and addresses for future promotions. Customers objected, however, so they discontinued the practice after November 3. The first day of the register is indeed labeled “Sat – Oct 26.” All they kept after November 3 was a daily ledger of income and expenses.

Here's a link with the September interviews and documents: Commission Exhibit 2941, https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pdf/WH26_CE_2941.pdf.

This allows us to dispose of one conspiracy factoid. A Gun Range helper named Malcolm Howard Price told the Warren Commission that he had helped “Oswald” sight in a rifle on the day the Gun Range opened, which he stated was Saturday, September 28. On this date, of course, the real Oswald was in Mexico City. This feeds the “imposter” narrative.

Price was simply wrong. The range did not open until October 26. When Price had been interviewed by the FBI on December 1, 1963, he had very clearly and unequivocally stated the correct date: October 26. He even specifically mentioned that was the day the Gun Range had opened. Those who repeat the “imposter” factoid, including James Douglass in JFK and the Unspeakable are simply lying hucksters. It took me no more than 30 minutes to dispel this nonsense.

Here's Price saying October 26 when interviewed by the FBI: Commission Document 7, Gemberling Report of 12/10/63, page 239, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10408#relPageId=246.
 
Because the Gun Range opened on October 26, it had been operating less than a month when JFK was assassinated. Floyd said there had been about 2000 customers, but Virginia seemed to have a more accurate figure of slightly more than 1600. Floyd collected all the spent shells on the range.

Floyd gave the FBI ten 6.5 mm shells he had segregated out, as well as more than twenty pounds of loose shells in two boxes. The FBI Laboratory determined that the ten were not Mannlicher-Carcano shells at all but that the boxes did contain 66 M-C shells that were not from Oswald’s rifle. The owner of a gun shop (on Beckley!) gave the FBI three M-C shells that were from the Gun Range but also not from Oswald’s rifle. A doctor and his friend had also collected 65 shells at the Gun Range as playthings for their children; these were determined by the FBI to include two M-C shells, likewise not from Oswald’s rifle. This is all summarized in Commission Exhibit 3049, which has references to the relevant FBI interviews and lab reports: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pdf/WH26_CE_3049.pdf.
 
Hence, at least 71 M-C shells from the period after October 26 were found at the Gun Range. I have no idea whether we should be startled by this. “Sporterized” M-C rifles, typically with the barrel shortened and a scope added, have been described as having a “superb reputation” as hunting firearms, but I have no idea how popular they were in 1963.

My journal-quality article attempted, of course, to discuss in detail all of the supposed “Oswald” sightings. You quickly realize that you’re in la-la land. Some of the witnesses, such as Garland Slack, sound “just a bit” hungry for publicity, although they all (with the exception of two I’ll mention) seem to have vanished into history and not attempted to capitalize on their 15 minutes of fame. You can read all of their early FBI interviews in the aforementioned Gemberling Report of 12/10/63, beginning at page 232, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10408#relPageId=239; Commission Document 205, Gemberling Report of 12/23/63, beginning at page 89,  https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10672#relPageId=92; and Commission Document 206, Gemberling Report of 1/7/64, beginning at page 30, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10673#relPageId=35.

You cannot help but be impressed by the effort that the FBI and Warren Commission devoted to these sightings. There is no way to say that none of them involved the real Oswald or an Oswald imposter. As a whole, however, they are preposterous. Garland Slack’s “Oswald” was a dead ringer – except he was blond. Price’s “Oswald” said he’d seen the Gun Range while he was driving by and had obtained his rifle and scope from a gun dealer in Cedar Hill who owed him $25; he always wore a “bulldogger” cowboy hat and had a chaw of tobacco or bubble gum in his cheek. His rifle did not match the M-C shown in newspaper photos. (Both Slack and Price considerably embellished their accounts and their certainty about “Oswald” in an article by Hugh Aynesworth, “Oswald Practicing Told,” in the December 9, 1963 edition of the Dallas Morning News, https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/5cf6e0f6-2904-4276-afce-6d9834936c3d/THE%20ASSASSINATION%20STORY%20PART%202.pdf.)

And on it goes. When you’re done with all the witness statements, you cannot avoid the suspicion that something like an “Oswald mania” swept through the Gun Range after one or two customers said they were sure they’d seen him. This is a common, well-documented psychological phenomenon. As a whole, the sightings do not (in my opinion) add up to Oswald or even someone trying to convincingly impersonate Oswald; surely someone trying to impersonate Oswald would have been more strikingly Oswald-like than the “Oswalds” we encounter in these statements. (The Floyds were afraid to contact the DPD or FBI because they feared the publicity would damage their business – as it did.)

Let’s dispose of yet another factoid while we’re at it. It is often stated that Garland Slack told his wife that “Oswald” had been driven to the Gun Range by a guy named Frazier from Irving. If true, this would obviously be a bombshell.

Interestingly, on December 11, 1963, the Dallas Morning News had reported in an article, “Further Oswald Tie to Range Revealed,” that an unnamed investigator within the DPD had said that a 24-year-old man who knew Oswald had admitted to driving him to the Gun Range: https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/5cf6e0f6-2904-4276-afce-6d9834936c3d/THE%20ASSASSINATION%20STORY%20PART%202.pdf. This immediately brings to mind either Buell Frazier or Michael Paine – but Frazier was only 19 and Paine was 35. The same day, the FBI followed up with the editor, who wouldn’t reveal the investigator's name but admitted the supposed driver was Paine (Commission Exhibit 2931, https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pdf/WH26_CE_2931.pdf). Perhaps understandably, since Paine flatly denied this and was nothing like 24, there was no follow-up at all; the story just died.

Garland Slack had obviously read the December 11 article because he referred to it in his Warren Commission testimony. He said the sighting had been on Sunday, November 17. He testified that he didn’t know the name of the guy with “Oswald” but knew he’d been identified by the authorities because he’d read it in the newspaper. He said the guy was tall and had the biggest feet he’d ever seen; he and “Oswald” had three rifles and had left in an old four-door sedan “like a crazy bunch of hoodlums.” He repeatedly said his wife Lucille would remember all this.

When interviewed by the FBI on 12/1/63, Slack had placed this incident on Sunday, November 10 rather than November 17. He had said the big-footed guy was about 24, dark complected, with a full beard and a “beatnik” haircut.

Lucille Slack was interviewed by the FBI in September of 1964 (some five months after Garland’s Warren Commission testimony) in an effort to nail down the November 17 incident. Commission Exhibit 3077, https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pdf/WH26_CE_3077.pdf.

The interview with Lucille is quite humorous. Because relatives had been visiting with her on November 10, Lucille unequivocally identified the date as November 17. She said that she and Garland had been at the Gun Range from noon until dark but she recalled seeing no one who looked like Oswald. She did vividly recall the big guy, whom she believed was alone.

She said that when Garland had first seen Oswald on TV, he’d thought he was “a truck driver for the Dallas City Water Works.” Only after Thanksgiving dinner on November 28 did Garland decide he’d seen Oswald at the Gun Range.
During the interview, Lucille contacted Garland to try to resolve any discrepancies. At that time, Garland told her that on November 17 “Oswald” had been brought to the Gun Range by a man named Frazier from Irving, Texas. (How on earth would he have known this?) Lucille stated that she thought Garland was “confused” but “sincere” as to when he had first seen “Oswald” at the Gun Range.

The “Frazier” factoid was obviously a long-after-the-fact invention by Garland. Moreover, the bearded big guy had long been known to be Michael Bentley Murph, who was 27, weighed 300 pounds, lived with his parents, and was an employee of Southern Lead Rolling Company. He recalled testing two non-scoped Remington rifles at the Gun Range on either November 3 or 10 but said he was alone, driving his employer’s near new (1962) white and red Chevy, and did not recall anyone who looked like Oswald. Commission Document 897, Gemberling Report of 4/4/64, page 116, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11293#relPageId=145. Since Murph was not interviewed until March of 1964, I’m inclined to think he was wrong about the date and it was actually November 17.

No matter how much “slack” we’re willing to cut old Garland, he comes out of all this looking like quite a BS artist.

The premier witnesses were Dr. Homer Wood, then 53, and his 13-year-old son Sterling. Dr. Wood was a successful dentist and Sterling later became a prominent podiatrist. (Gus Russo, who says he actually spoke with them, has this reversed.) It was Dr. Wood who contacted the FBI and got the ball rolling with the Sportsdrome story; he spoke with Will Fritz of the DPD by phone, whereupon the FBI interviewed him and the others.

I won’t beat their testimony to death. You can read it for yourself. They were at the Gun Range for about 90 minutes on Saturday, November 16. Dr. Wood saw “Oswald,” alone, in profile, and his description is quite a good match for the real Oswald. When interviewed by the FBI on December 3, he was “satisfied” this was Oswald. Sterling had recognized the man at the Gun Range as Oswald when he saw him on TV and in the newspaper on November 22 and 23. Like his father, he was “satisfied” this was Oswald. Both Dr. Wood and Sterling described “Oswald” as an excellent shot.

Sterling, who was really into guns, had asked “Oswald” if his rifle was a 6.5 mm Italian carbine with a 4X scope and had been assured that it was (“Yes, sir”). The rifle also had a sling. Sterling observed flame coming from the barrel and had no explanation for this. He believed “Oswald” had left in a car that was probably a sedan because it definitely wasn’t a station wagon or convertible. When shown a photo of Oswald’s rifle the next day, however, he said it was not the same gun.

Kenneth Longley, a 25-year-old college student and the son of one of Dr. Wood’s dentist colleagues, was at the Gun Range at the same time and described the guy in Oswald-like terms except that he had wire-rimmed glasses and was wearing a yellow Western shirt with snaps instead of buttons. He didn’t think it was Oswald.

Dr. Wood’s testimony at the Warren Commission was consistent with his earlier statements. He emphasized seeing fire come out of “Oswald’s” barrel and said he had joked about it with Sterling. He said he had immediately recognized “Oswald” when the real Oswald came on TV and had intentionally refrained from saying anything to Sterling, telling his wife that he was going to wait and see if Sterling made the same connection. When Sterling later entered the room, he did immediately make the connection. At the Commission, he was “positive” it had been Oswald at the Gun Range.

Sterling was considerably less consistent at the Commission. He now added that he had noticed that “Oswald” removed each empty shell from the breech of the rifle and put it in his pocket. He now said he’d noticed that the rifle had a shortened barrel (consistent with “sporterizing”) but was still a little longer than a yardstick. This time, his “Oswald” had “left with a man in a newer model car” who was about the same size as “Oswald.” He insisted that this is what he had previously told the FBI (it wasn’t). Now, also, “Oswald” had a “mean, stern face” and “you could tell he was a cold man.” Contrary to Dr. Wood’s testimony, Sterling said he had first mentioned the resemblance to his father when they had gone to get a newspaper together. He also waffled on whether the picture of Oswald’s rifle was the same as the rifle at the Gun Range, although he did still say the scope looked different.

Dr. Wood’s wife, Theresa, also testified and tap-danced around the issues. She didn’t recall the incident with the TV where Dr. Wood had supposedly told her that he was going to wait and see how Sterling reacted. She wasn’t sure whether Dr. Wood or Sterling had first identified Oswald and whether it was on TV or in the newspaper. She only knew that Dr. Wood was “very, very sure” and “positive.”

Despite the discrepancies and possible embellishments, there is no reason – at this point in our story, anyway - to question the good faith of Dr. Wood or Sterling. Maybe they saw Oswald! The fact that the rifle was clearly different – Oswald’s rifle had not been sporterized and would not have spewed flame – is a distinct problem, of course. (Later conspiracy texts attribute the flame to “Oswald” using “heavy” loads with extra powder – were they reloads? – and suggest that Sterling had recognized this fact when he actually had said nothing about it.)

The dates on which the sightings occurred are interesting. All were on weekends when Oswald wasn’t working and theoretically could have been at the Gun Range. October 26 was a Saturday, the first weekend after Rachel had been born, and he thus may well have visited the Paine home. November 10 was a Sunday, part of the November 8-11 Veterans Day holiday, and he was definitely in Irving. November 16-17 was the weekend before the JFKA when he was definitely not at the Paine home. I’m not sure what it all adds up to, but it’s more suggestive than if the sightings had been in mid-week when he was working at the TSBD.

JFK’s trip to Texas was announced in the Dallas Morning News in late September, before Oswald was working at the TSBD or the Gun Range was open. The motorcade route was not finalized until November 18 and maps were not published until the day before the assassination – all after the last Gun Range sighting. Hence, the actual Oswald would have been practicing without this knowledge (and, by all accounts, with a rifle different from the one used in the assassination). An imposter connected with the conspiracy may have had greater advance knowledge, but if imposture was the objective one has to wonder why the imposter would not have acted more Oswald-like and used an identical weapon. More to the point, what would have been the purpose of an Oswald imposter – what would it have added to the case against Oswald if he were seen practicing at the Gun Range? I also have to wonder, if the real Oswald had his rifle in his paws on one or more occasions at the Gun Range, why he didn't simply take it to the rooming house on Beckley so he didn't have to ask Frazier for a ride the night before the assassination. From no angle do the "Oswald" sightings make much sense to me.

Nevertheless, it is impossible to say that one of these wasn’t Oswald.

Now to the factoid aspect of the Woods’ story. As I stated, all of the other principals seem to have vanished into history. For example, I could find nothing further about Floyd and Virginia Davis. Not so with the Woods.

They appear prominently in Gus Russo’s Live by the Sword. Russo relies predominantly on what they said in connection the 1993 three-hour PBS production “Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?” Neither they nor anything about the Gun Range incident made it into the final production, but they were apparently interviewed by Anthony Summers and W. Scott Malone. Russo has Dr. Wood, who would have been 83, telling Malone that “Oswald” was “an incredible shot with that old junky rifle – incredible!” Kenneth Longley – remember him? – now tells Malone, “The man I saw shooting could have done it,” meaning the assassination. As always, things get “better” as the years roll by.

Now we get into genuine silliness. This is discussed both in Russo’s book and online at https://www.jfk-online.com/oswaldrifle.html. Russo says that in 1993 researcher Dave Perry tipped him off that he had recently spoken with Sterling (now 43). Russo followed up with Sterling. Sterling was “reluctant” to meet, humbly wondering if what he had to say was really “important to history.” After “many weeks of haggling,” Sterling agreed to talk. He had been reluctant to talk because, within a year of the assassination (when he would have been 14), he had been “attacked and hospitalized – and almost died” and a metal plate had been implanted in his skull. “Finally” agreeing to an interview, Sterling suddenly lost all fear. “I’ll be bringing some things that will blow your mind,” he told Russo.

But then Sterling backed out. His father was “dead set” against it. Sterling reneged “to keep family peace.”

But don’t lose heart – we know his mind-blowing story. Here it is, as described by Dave Perry:

In the summer of 1990, Perry was working as a volunteer at the Assassination Information Center in Dallas. One night he was alone at the desk. A young man accompanied by a “drop dead gorgeous” woman stopped in. The man asked Perry for a copy of the Warren Report and showed the girl that his name was in it: Sterling Wood (then 40).

When Perry questioned him, Sterling said the real reason that he and his father knew it was Oswald at the Gun Range was because they had driven Oswald home! Dr. Wood had begun to feel sorry for Oswald and had struck up a conversation with him, whereupon he learned that Oswald lived in Oak Cliff. Dr. Wood offered him a ride home and he accepted, riding in the back. At some point along Marsalis, Oswald asked to be let out. Sterling thought this was to keep him and his father from learning exactly where he lived.

During the trip, the subject of Minsk came up. They told Oswald that one of Sterling’s grandparents lived in Minsk, whereupon Oswald mentioned that he had lived there too.

At this point in the story, Gary Shaw joined the group. Shaw, Sterling and the girlfriend went into the Penn Jones Theater. Sterling and the woman emerged five minutes later, and Sterling seemed upset. Sterling accepted Perry’s business card and hurried out. Perry later tried to call him, but he refused Perry’s calls.

Perry confided in Gerald Posner and Russo. Posner called both Sterling and Dr. Wood without success and sent registered letters but received no answers. In 1993 Russo and Malone were in Dallas doing work on the PBS production. On April 28, 1993, Perry and Malone made several unsuccessful attempts to contact Sterling. They made a cold call on Dr. Wood, but he refused to talk to them and referred them back to Sterling.

If this weren’t incredible enough, Russo then adds in Live by the Sword, completely without attribution, that “After the assassination, the Woods received letters from Oswald's widow, hoping the Wood family would forward them to Minsk. That Marina knew of the Woods and their family in Minsk establishes the credibility of the son’s allegations.” (What?)

None of this makes any sense whatsoever. Read the Woods’ FBI statements and Warren Commission testimonies. They would have to have been fantastic, bald-faced liars – for no apparent reason, not to mention the fact that Dr. Wood was a respected 53-year-old dentist. In the context of reporting their “Oswald” sighting to the FBI, in which they were the ones who took the initiative, why would they not have reported giving him a friendly ride home?

The tale is absurd, enough to make me wonder if Sterling might be some sort of huckster. He is very much alive and living in Las Vegas. He makes some pretty grand claims about his medical background and expertise in connection with a supplement called Pondera that he developed and promotes: https://ponderawellness.com/dr-sterling-wood/?srsltid=AfmBOoqgO8sLLbfS_59DGYTKUg_7mTLxMJSKS32QebJbdhhNFYz7_9x_.

I managed to obtain his personal email address and sent him an entirely low-key and respectful email, asking him if he would care to share any more about this now that we’re both doddering 75-year-olds. I invited him to tell me to “Get lost!” if he were so inclined. I received no response.

I make no accusations, other than that I believe the “ride home” story is a complete fabrication. Dave Perry questioned as well whether Sterling may have invented the tale to impress his girlfriend. The entire episode is enough to make me view the Woods’ story from day one with a jaundiced eye.

There ya go. Do with it what you will. I’m done – really done. I won’t be responding to any replies.

[Benjamin Cole]

Great reporting.

Yes, the M-C's were sold as "sporterized" with scopes, and evidently well regarded, as serviceable in the price range.

The idea that the M-C is a bad rifle is not valid, although with wartime surplus, there can be variations in quality.

I encourage LP to continue to JFKA research.

Add on: It doesn't surprise me that James Douglass made errors on the Sportsdrome Gun Range and LHO sightings.

Douglass is an ideologue who has an agenda, and that determines his narratives.

Douglass even re-prints Roger Vinson's dubious tale of an LHO double boarding plane in Dallas on 11/22, that had landed in a wash near downtown, and then flew on to Roswell, NM. Yes, Roswell.

[Duncan MacRae]

[Michael T. Griffith]

The Sportsdrome Gun Range (not “Sports Drome,” as it is often misspelled) was located at 8000 West Davis on Highway 180 in Grand Prairie, Texas. It was slightly more than seven miles from both Ruth Paine’s home and Oswald’s room on Beckley (not 13 miles as is often misstated, apparently thanks to Gus Russo – whose work on this story is a comedy of factual errors).

FYI, the Warren Commission and the FBI spelled it "Sports Drome." FBI agents visited the range several times.

Yes, of course you throw cold water on any evidence that Oswald was being impersonated, never mind that Sterling Wood independently recognized Oswald the very first time he saw him on TV after the assassination as the man he had encountered at the range, and that his father, a respected dentist, verified this. Dr. Wood and his son must have been lying or misremembering. Of course.

Your arguments indicate you've read nothing that challenges the arguments against the impersonation accounts.

[Lance Payette]

The address is wrong (800 West Davis) in the newspaper ad.

There is a Facebook group devoted to keeping memories of the Speedway alive: https://www.facebook.com/groups/SportsdromeSpeedway/

[Lance Payette]

I’ll close with some general observations for which the Sportsdrome piece serves as a good illustration.

I spent most of my legal career as a lawyer to other lawyers, doing intensive research, analysis and writing for complex motions and appellate briefs.

In genuine legal research, we go to primary sources – the actual witnesses and documents involved in the case. There is a hierarchy, of course. What Fred said on day 1 and what he said under oath on day 30 are highly relevant; what he said to a reporter 15 years later, not so much. Government documents and business records are more probative than Fred’s supposed diary. The Rules of Evidence reflect this hierarchy.

With the Sportsdrome story, there is a wealth of primary source documents. The FBI was on this story by December 1. For all that CTers complain about the sloppy, half-assed work of the FBI and Warren Commission, the work they did on this one small aspect of the case is staggering.

Outside of conspiracy world, cobbling together and regurgitating what Jim DiEugenio said, and Mark Lane said, and John Armstrong said, and Gus Russo said, and David Lifton said, is not research. It is not research at all, and yet it passes for research all the time in the CT community. This is how factoids harden into gospel. The reality that it all started with Mark Lane, and that no one checked Lane's sources, is lost in the mists of time.

These supposed gurus all have agendas, egos and even profit motives for some. The same is true of Posner, Bugliosi and other LN heroes. Regurgitating what they said is not research. If you uncritically trust what they say, you’re just a cluck, a CT or LN fanboy.

There is no secret to my modest factoid-busting success apart from going behind the gurus to the primary sources. Something strikes my fancy and I decide to check it out. My batting average is about .978 for what the CT gurus say not standing up to scrutiny. Maybe I’ve just been lucky, but it’s been eye-opening.

If the CT fallback position is then that the primary sources were faked, altered, etc., the axiom about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence comes into play. I saw nothing in my Sportsdrome research to suggest anything was being fudged; quite the opposite. (Doofus Wesley Liebeler allowed Price to get away with saying he’d seen “Oswald” on September 28, and the Warren Report itself repeats the September 28 factoid!)

When we’ve done all the research we can, then common sense does come into play at the analysis stage. Let’s apply it to the Sportsdrome:

1. If it could be determined that Oswald was actually practicing at the Sportsdrome, this would obviously enhance the case against him, would it not?

2. If Oswald had been accompanied by other persons, this might suggest a conspiracy but would have been yet another Three Stooges move by the planners: let’s send them all to the same rifle range where they can be observed acting weird by dozens of people. The only person associated with Oswald by some witnesses – the bearded fat guy with big feet and a funky haircut – was diligently tracked down by the FBI and proved to be wholly innocent Michael Bentley Murph (yet we still see this poor guy referred to in the CT literature as “the Cuban”).

3. If the theory is that “Oswald” was an imposter, what was the point? To make the real Oswald look even more guilty than the rest of the evidence did anyway? To actually plant the idea of a conspiracy? Once again, this is Three Stooges stuff. There would have been no way of knowing that people at the range wouldn’t have cameras, wouldn’t write down license numbers, wouldn’t get into altercations, wouldn’t realize later this wasn’t Oswald. What could possibly be accomplished by sending an imposter Oswald and imposter conspirators to the Gun Range that would be worth the risks?

4. If one were going to stage an imposter “Oswald,” wouldn’t the imposter logically look and act as close to the real Oswald as possible, right down to the rifle? Wouldn’t he conveniently let slip his name and do Oswald-like stuff (like talking about Russia or his wife Marina and new baby)? Yet no one thought the rifle was really the same as the assassination weapon. Star witness Price, who said he saw “Oswald” on several occasions, said his "Oswald" always wore a “bulldogger” cowboy hat and had a chaw of tobacco or bubble gum and was using a different rifle (yet when Price talked to reporters, there was “no doubt” this was Oswald!).

5. I think it’s at least possible the Woods actually saw Oswald, without the embellishments added by young Sterling at the Warren Commission and certainly without his nonsense of 30 years later. Here, however, we run into two large problems: (1) the motorcade and its route had not yet been publicized; and (2) since Oswald was not at the Paine home at all on that date, he would’ve had to obtain the rifle prior to that date, not take it to his room on Beckley but somehow put it back in the Paine garage after he was done shooting, and then go retrieve it a few days later on the night before the JFKA. If you can make sense of this, you’re more creative than I.

Our favorite CT loon above chides me for a lack of familiarity with the CT arguments relating to the Sportsdrome. I’m quite familiar with them, but this misses the whole point: We have an abundance of primary sources. I don’t care what a CT guru says about them any more than I care what Posner says about them. I can see them for myself.

If you’ve never done so, simply follow the links I provided. The documents speak for themselves. There was no chicanery and, indeed, no reason for any chicanery. Unless you are a 32nd-degree CT loon, I virtually guarantee you will come away thinking the Sportsdrome is far more myth than mystery.

Surely you realize from the contribution of our favorite loon above that you are dealing with functional insanity insofar as the JFKA concerned. It’s like trying to argue with a zombified like Flat Earther – which, if you’ve never done it, is absolutely disorienting and far more challenging than you might imagine. It has nothing to do with actual research or rational, reasonable inferences. The Sportsdrome simply has to be a mystery because it's one of the tenets of our CT faith. Jousting with a loon like this can be amusing mental exercise if you recognize it for the hopeless and pointless task it is, but I’m simply worn out on it.

[Charles Collins]

I’ll close with some general observations for which the Sportsdrome piece serves as a good illustration.

I spent most of my legal career as a lawyer to other lawyers, doing intensive research, analysis and writing for complex motions and appellate briefs.

In genuine legal research, we go to primary sources – the actual witnesses and documents involved in the case. There is a hierarchy, of course. What Fred said on day 1 and what he said under oath on day 30 are highly relevant; what he said to a reporter 15 years later, not so much. Government documents and business records are more probative than Fred’s supposed diary. The Rules of Evidence reflect this hierarchy.

With the Sportsdrome story, there is a wealth of primary source documents. The FBI was on this story by December 1. For all that CTers complain about the sloppy, half-assed work of the FBI and Warren Commission, the work they did on this one small aspect of the case is staggering.

Outside of conspiracy world, cobbling together and regurgitating what Jim DiEugenio said, and Mark Lane said, and John Armstrong said, and Gus Russo said, and David Lifton said, is not research. It is not research at all, and yet it passes for research all the time in the CT community. This is how factoids harden into gospel. The reality that it all started with Mark Lane, and that no one checked Lane's sources, is lost in the mists of time.

These supposed gurus all have agendas, egos and even profit motives for some. The same is true of Posner, Bugliosi and other LN heroes. Regurgitating what they said is not research. If you uncritically trust what they say, you’re just a cluck, a CT or LN fanboy.

There is no secret to my modest factoid-busting success apart from going behind the gurus to the primary sources. Something strikes my fancy and I decide to check it out. My batting average is about .978 for what the CT gurus say not standing up to scrutiny. Maybe I’ve just been lucky, but it’s been eye-opening.

If the CT fallback position is then that the primary sources were faked, altered, etc., the axiom about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence comes into play. I saw nothing in my Sportsdrome research to suggest anything was being fudged; quite the opposite. (Doofus Wesley Liebeler allowed Price to get away with saying he’d seen “Oswald” on September 28, and the Warren Report itself repeats the September 28 factoid!)

When we’ve done all the research we can, then common sense does come into play at the analysis stage. Let’s apply it to the Sportsdrome:

1. If it could be determined that Oswald was actually practicing at the Sportsdrome, this would obviously enhance the case against him, would it not?

2. If Oswald had been accompanied by other persons, this might suggest a conspiracy but would have been yet another Three Stooges move by the planners: let’s send them all to the same rifle range where they can be observed acting weird by dozens of people. The only person associated with Oswald by some witnesses – the bearded fat guy with big feet and a funky haircut – was diligently tracked down by the FBI and proved to be wholly innocent Michael Bentley Murph (yet we still see this poor guy referred to in the CT literature as “the Cuban”).

3. If the theory is that “Oswald” was an imposter, what was the point? To make the real Oswald look even more guilty than the rest of the evidence did anyway? To actually plant the idea of a conspiracy? Once again, this is Three Stooges stuff. There would have been no way of knowing that people at the range wouldn’t have cameras, wouldn’t write down license numbers, wouldn’t get into altercations, wouldn’t realize later this wasn’t Oswald. What could possibly be accomplished by sending an imposter Oswald and imposter conspirators to the Gun Range that would be worth the risks?

4. If one were going to stage an imposter “Oswald,” wouldn’t the imposter logically look and act as close to the real Oswald as possible, right down to the rifle? Wouldn’t he conveniently let slip his name and do Oswald-like stuff (like talking about Russia or his wife Marina and new baby)? Yet no one thought the rifle was really the same as the assassination weapon. Star witness Price, who said he saw “Oswald” on several occasions, said his "Oswald" always wore a “bulldogger” cowboy hat and had a chaw of tobacco or bubble gum and was using a different rifle (yet when Price talked to reporters, there was “no doubt” this was Oswald!).

5. I think it’s at least possible the Woods actually saw Oswald, without the embellishments added by young Sterling at the Warren Commission and certainly without his nonsense of 30 years later. Here, however, we run into two large problems: (1) the motorcade and its route had not yet been publicized; and (2) since Oswald was not at the Paine home at all on that date, he would’ve had to obtain the rifle prior to that date, not take it to his room on Beckley but somehow put it back in the Paine garage after he was done shooting, and then go retrieve it a few days later on the night before the JFKA. If you can make sense of this, you’re more creative than I.

Our favorite CT loon above chides me for a lack of familiarity with the CT arguments relating to the Sportsdrome. I’m quite familiar with them, but this misses the whole point: We have an abundance of primary sources. I don’t care what a CT guru says about them any more than I care what Posner says about them. I can see them for myself.

If you’ve never done so, simply follow the links I provided. The documents speak for themselves. There was no chicanery and, indeed, no reason for any chicanery. Unless you are a 32nd-degree CT loon, I virtually guarantee you will come away thinking the Sportsdrome is far more myth than mystery.

Surely you realize from the contribution of our favorite loon above that you are dealing with functional insanity insofar as the JFKA concerned. It’s like trying to argue with a zombified like Flat Earther – which, if you’ve never done it, is absolutely disorienting and far more challenging than you might imagine. It has nothing to do with actual research or rational, reasonable inferences. The Sportsdrome simply has to be a mystery because it's one of the tenets of our CT faith. Jousting with a loon like this can be amusing mental exercise if you recognize it for the hopeless and pointless task it is, but I’m simply worn out on it.

There is no secret to my modest factoid-busting success apart from going behind the gurus to the primary sources. Something strikes my fancy and I decide to check it out. My batting average is about .978 for what the CT gurus say not standing up to scrutiny. Maybe I’ve just been lucky, but it’s been eye-opening.

Lance, have you ever attempted to target the “reasons” that the CT community cite for not accepting the evidence? Your treatment of the CT factoids seems to be unbiased. Sometimes you even appear to bend over backwards trying to give the factoids every chance of being correct. Do any of their “reasons” strike your fancy enough to warrant you “checking them out”?

[Lance Payette]

There is no secret to my modest factoid-busting success apart from going behind the gurus to the primary sources. Something strikes my fancy and I decide to check it out. My batting average is about .978 for what the CT gurus say not standing up to scrutiny. Maybe I’ve just been lucky, but it’s been eye-opening.

Lance, have you ever attempted to target the “reasons” that the CT community cite for not accepting the evidence? Your treatment of the CT factoids seems to be unbiased. Sometimes you even appear to bend over backwards trying to give the factoids every chance of being correct. Do any of their “reasons” strike your fancy enough to warrant you “checking them out”?

I really think the reasons are to be found in the conspiracy-prone mindset, and I don't know how I would go about checking that out. I do have a lot of experience (perhaps I should be embarrassed!) with "weirdness" communities, from religion to UFOs to the Shroud of Turin, to Near Death Experiences, to all variety of anomalous phenomena. At one time, I was one of less than 100 U.S. members of the (British) Society for Psychical Research. I realized at some point that I have at least a mild case of conspiracy-prone mindset and am drawn to "weirdness." I've experienced enough myself and have enough close relatives and friends who have experienced it that I am by no means a naysayer or debunker. On the other hand, I have somehow remained rational enough to recognize the vast amount of silliness and to stay alert to my own tendencies and confirmation biases.

No one believes me, but I truly would LOVE it if Oswald were a patsy of a conspiracy extending from LBJ on down. (Confession: Just this morning I was watching "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" and lapping it up.) That just simply isn't where the evidence points. It just isn't. If someone has actually looked at the EVIDENCE and still thinks there was any sort of sophisticated or elaborate conspiracy, I can only explain this on the basis of a bad case of conspiracy-prone mindset.

Look at our favorite CT loon on this thread. Look at the stuff he believes. Look at his inability to see anything other than the CT perspective on any issue. It is literally the Flat Earth version of JFKA conspiracy theorizing. And yet, even the Flat Earthers include many highly educated, very intelligent people who are by no means just having fun with their nonsense as I once assumed they were. (I also just visited the Flat Earth Society this morning, where the forum is way more active than this one. Wade into the fray, as I once did, and you won't emerged unscathed because these people have a superficially plausible-sounding answer for everything.) I have no explanation other than that something is going on inside these folks' heads that is very different from what's going on inside yours or mine, which is what the psychological and sociological literature on the conspiracy-prone mindset suggests.

When you encounter the lunatic fringe of the conspiracy-prone mindset, as we do here, you are WAY into the ozone. And then it becomes almost a religion, which is why one denomination of CTers despises another almost to the extent the Southern Baptists despise the Mormons. If someone like our favorite loon would put his intelligence to work on the development of a rational, plausible, evidence-based theory, we'd have something to talk about. Because of what's driving him, however, he literally CAN'T.

Anyway, I don't know of anything a trainee factoid-buster can do except say "That sounds interesting and a bit unlikely - I wonder if it's true?" and go to the primary sources. As Steven has pointed out, however, and as you can see from my efforts, it's WAY more effort than it's worth unless you just enjoy the hunt (which I do while I'm laid up with my Achilles). But this thread will disappear in a few days, the loons will go right on with their "Sports Drome" nonsense, and this will all have been strictly for my own amusement. Aaarghh ...