JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate

The Lone-Gunman Theory: An Extremely Fragile House of Cards

<< < (2/5) > >>

Michael T. Griffith:
Here is a fourth set of examples:

-- The problem of Oswald’s documented presence in the Depository’s second-floor lunchroom, with or without a Coke, within 90 seconds after the shooting is compounded by accounts that someone was in the sixth-floor window long after Oswald could not have been there.

Lillian Mooneyham, a clerk of the 95th District Court, watched the motorcade from windows in the Dallas Criminal Courts Building. She told the FBI that about four to five minutes after the shooting, “she looked up towards the sixth floor of the TSBD and observed the figure of a man standing in the sixth-floor window behind some cardboard boxes. This man appeared to Mrs. Mooneyham to be looking out of the window; however, the man was not close up to the window but was standing slightly back from it, so that Mrs. Mooneyham could not make out his features.”

Obviously, this man could not have been Oswald, and no policeman was in the sniper’s nest until at least 30 minutes later.

If Lillian Mooneyham wasn’t seeing things or wildly mistaken about when she saw the man in the sixth-floor window, the lone-gunman theory collapses.

The HSCA Photographic Evidence Panel (PEP) confirmed from the Dillard and Powell photos that boxes were being rearranged in the sixth-floor window “within two minutes after the last shot was fired” (6 HSCA 109-115; 4 HSCA 422-423). This is key photographic evidence that someone other than Oswald was in the sixth-floor window within two minutes after the shooting.

The few WC apologists who have addressed this crucial HSCA finding have floated the amateurish argument that the apparent movement of boxes is an optical illusion caused by a difference in perspective and sunlight in the two photos, specifically, that because the line of sight and sunlight are different in the photos, we are seeing different boxes in one photo than are visible in the other photo. However, the HSCA photographic experts specifically considered this explanation and rejected it (4 HSCA 422-423).

The most detailed analysis of the HSCA PEP’s historic finding on the post-assassination movement of boxes in the sniper’s nest is Barry Krusch’s 55-page analysis in his book Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald, Volume 3, pp. 25-70. Krusch shows beyond any doubt that the HSCA PEP experts were correct. He also shows that WC counsel David Belin recognized that the boxes in CE 482 (the Dillard photo) were not in the same position as the boxes in the police evidence photo of the sniper’s nest taken after 1:12 PM (CE 715).

-- If all the experts, including the HSCA PEP experts, who’ve concluded that the Zapruder film shows JFK reacting to a wound starting at right around Z200 and that this shot was fired at around Z186-190, the lone-gunman theory collapses.

Anyone who knows the basics of the JFK case knows that a gunman in the sixth-floor window would have had his view of JFK obstructed from Z166-207 by the intervening oak tree on the north side of Elm Street. This is one reason that the fiercest debate among the HSCA PEP members was over the conclusion that a shot was fired at Z186-190, but a solid majority of the PEP experts supported the finding, to their great credit.

Another indication that JFK was hit at around Z190 and began to react at around Z200 is that Jackie Kennedy, starting at about Z202, clearly notices that something is wrong with JFK. By Z202-204, Jackie has made a sudden sharp turn to the right, toward
her husband. When she reemerges into view at Z223, she is looking intently at
JFK. Obviously, her attention was drawn to him because the reaction that
he had begun at around Z200 had become more noticeable while the car was
behind the freeway sign.

Also, the HSCA PEP experts noted that a strong blur episode begins at around Z189.

Some Oswald-was-the-shooter researchers, recognizing the validity of the Z186-190 shot and JFK’s Z200-207 reaction to it, have suggested that the sixth-floor gunman fired this shot at Z186, during the split-second break in the oak tree's foliage. However, the gunman would have had only 1/18th of a second to aim and fire this shot, but the human eye requires 1/6th of a second to register and react to data. Even the WC admitted it was unlikely the alleged single assassin would have fired during the 56-millisecond break in the foliage at Z186.

For more information on the Z186-190 shot, see “Reactions to Six Shots in the Zapruder Film,” https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nnp3Vch_KMOB_qufAhlQOCLTTS9jqNV0/view.

See also Don Olson and Ralph Turner, “Photographic Evidence and the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy,” Journal of Forensic Sciences, 16:4, October 1971, pp. 399-419, http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/J%20Disk/Journal%20of%20Forensic%20Science/Item%2001.pdf

Tom Graves:

--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on January 18, 2026, 11:22:57 AM ---[...]

--- End quote ---

Dear Comrade Griffith,

How many evil, evil "Deep State" bad guys and bad gals do you figure were involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the planting of false evidence, the shooting, the getting-away, the altering of all of the Dealey Plaza films and photos / Bethesda photos and X-rays, and the all-important (and continuing!!!) cover up?

Thirty?

-- Tom

Mitch Todd:

--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on January 17, 2026, 01:48:29 PM ---And here a few more examples:

-- If Arnold Rowland was telling the truth when he insisted he saw two men with rifles on the TSBD’s sixth floor 5-15 minutes before the shooting, the lone-gunman theory collapses.

The WC bent over backward to accept Howard Brennan’s problematic, contradictory testimony, but they looked for any excuse, no matter how lame or petty, to reject Rowland’s testimony, even though Rowland’s wife confirmed that he had immediately told her about seeing a man holding a rifle on the west end of the sixth floor (i.e., the opposite end of the building from the sniper’s nest). In a display of glaring bias, the WC not only rejected Rowland’s testimony but went to great lengths to discredit him as a witness and as a person.

By any reasonable standard, Rowland was a credible witness who had no reason to lie about seeing two men with rifles on the sixth floor shortly before the shooting. See chapter 4, pp. 19-21, in Hasty Judgment: Why the JFK Case Is Not Closed, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JuHmh8_AXyoKFyCt0RPXEUoHDPy-qakz/view.

Several men who were in the county jail in the Criminal Courts Building also saw two men on the TSBD’s sixth floor shortly before the shooting. One of them was Johnny Powell. He said the men were handling a scope on a rifle. Powell logically assumed the men were security officers.

Ruby Henderson was another person in the plaza who saw two men on the Depository’s sixth floor shortly before the shooting. In agreement with Rowland, she said one of the men had a dark complexion.

Carolyn Walthers was another witness who saw two men on the TSBD’s sixth floor shortly before the shooting. She said one of the men had a rifle. In agreement with four other witnesses, she said one of the men was wearing a light-colored shirt (but Oswald wore a brown, rust-colored shirt to work that day, and was seen wearing that shirt in the second-floor lunchroom less than 90 seconds after the shooting). It is instructive to note that Walthers reported that FBI agents tried to get her to change her story.

Powell’s, Henderson’s, and Walthers’ accounts are discussed in “Overlooked Witnesses,” https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339748/.

-- If Secret Service agent Paul Landis was telling the truth when he reported, shortly before he died, that he found a virtually undamaged bullet in the back seat of JFK’s limo and placed it on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, the lone-gunman theory collapses.

Dr. James Robenalt, a historian who worked with Landis to prepare him for the publication of his disclosure, believes the disclosure “is really the most significant news in the assassination since 1963.”

When Landis came forward with his disclosure, he knew he was dying. He had no reason to fabricate such an account.

-- If the three pathologists at Methodist Hospital in Dallas who actually handled and examined the Harper Fragment were correct in identifying it as occipital bone, the lone-gunman theory collapses. Occipital bone is located only in the back of the skull.

One of those pathologists, Dr. A. B. Cairns, was the chief of pathology at Methodist Hospital. The two other pathologists were Dr. Jack Harper and Dr. Gerard Noteboom. All three identified the fragment as occipital bone. Their identification confirms the dozens of eyewitness accounts of a large hole in the right-rear part of JFK’s skull.

When Dr. David Mantik interviewed Dr. Noteboom in a recorded interview in November 1992, Dr. Noteboom confirmed that the Harper Fragment was occipital bone and that he actually held the fragment in his hands as he examined it.

Predictably, the Harper Fragment disappeared after the FBI gave it to Dr. George Burkley. We have the two FBI photos of the fragment, but not the fragment itself. Drs. Cairns, Harper, and Noteboom were the only pathologists who actually held the fragment in their hands and examined it, and all three said it was occipital bone.

Dr. David Mantik has confirmed that the fragment was occipital bone. See his detailed analyses of the Harper Fragment in his book JFK Assassination Paradoxes and The Final Analysis. See also the segments on the Harper Fragment in Dr. Mantik’s online articles “The JFK Autopsy Materials,” https://themantikview.org/pdf/The_JFK_Autopsy_Materials.pdf, and “The Medical Evidence Decoded,” https://themantikview.org/pdf/The_Medical_Evidence_Decoded.pdf.

By the way, Dr. John Ebersole, the radiologist at the autopsy, told the HSCA that one of the skull fragments that arrived late at the autopsy was “a large fragment of the occipital bone” (Testimony of John H. Ebersole, Medical Panel Meeting, HSCA, 3/11/78, p. 5).

--- End quote ---
MG: If Arnold Rowland was telling the truth when he insisted he saw two men with rifles on the TSBD’s sixth floor 5-15 minutes before the shooting, the lone-gunman theory collapses.[...]By any reasonable standard, Rowland was a credible witness

In his testimony, Rowland makes a number of claims about himself that are, shall we say...interesting. These claims were interesting enough that it triggered a Secret Service background check. The Secret Service found that Rowland's extraordinary claims about himself were BS, and that he had a reputation as being habitually untruthful.


MG: Ruby Henderson was another person in the plaza who saw two men on the Depository’s sixth floor shortly before the shooting

Ruby Henderson said "she saw two men on one of the upper floors of the building." IIRC she never said exactly what floor.


MG: Carolyn Walthers was another witness who saw two men on the TSBD’s sixth floor shortly before the shooting.

She said that the two men she saw were on the fourth or fifth floor. She was "positive this window was not as high as the sixth floor."


If the three pathologists at Methodist Hospital in Dallas who actually handled and examined the Harper Fragment were correct in identifying it as occipital bone, the lone-gunman theory collapses. Occipital bone is located only in the back of the skull.

If the Harper fragment were part of the occipital bone, then we should see a substantial portion of the cruciform eminence on its inner surface. But there is no trace of cruciform eminence to be found on the Harper fragment. Further, the inner surface of the Harper fragment features two prominent vascular grooves. The Parietal and Temporal bone have such grooves, but the  Occipital bone does not. Dr Joseph Riley, a neuroanatomist, summed it up this way: "simply put, occipital bone doesn't look like the [Harper Fragment], but parietal bone does."

Michael T. Griffith:

--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on January 18, 2026, 11:22:57 AM ---Here is a fourth set of examples:

-- The problem of Oswald’s documented presence in the Depository’s second-floor lunchroom, with or without a Coke, within 90 seconds after the shooting is compounded by accounts that someone was in the sixth-floor window long after Oswald could not have been there.

Lillian Mooneyham, a clerk of the 95th District Court, watched the motorcade from windows in the Dallas Criminal Courts Building. She told the FBI that about four to five minutes after the shooting, “she looked up towards the sixth floor of the TSBD and observed the figure of a man standing in the sixth-floor window behind some cardboard boxes. This man appeared to Mrs. Mooneyham to be looking out of the window; however, the man was not close up to the window but was standing slightly back from it, so that Mrs. Mooneyham could not make out his features.”

Obviously, this man could not have been Oswald, and no policeman was in the sniper’s nest until at least 30 minutes later.

If Lillian Mooneyham wasn’t seeing things or wildly mistaken about when she saw the man in the sixth-floor window, the lone-gunman theory collapses.

The HSCA Photographic Evidence Panel (PEP) confirmed from the Dillard and Powell photos that boxes were being rearranged in the sixth-floor window “within two minutes after the last shot was fired” (6 HSCA 109-115; 4 HSCA 422-423). This is key photographic evidence that someone other than Oswald was in the sixth-floor window within two minutes after the shooting.

The few WC apologists who have addressed this crucial HSCA finding have floated the amateurish argument that the apparent movement of boxes is an optical illusion caused by a difference in perspective and sunlight in the two photos, specifically, that because the line of sight and sunlight are different in the photos, we are seeing different boxes in one photo than are visible in the other photo. However, the HSCA photographic experts specifically considered this explanation and rejected it (4 HSCA 422-423).

The most detailed analysis of the HSCA PEP’s historic finding on the post-assassination movement of boxes in the sniper’s nest is Barry Krusch’s 55-page analysis in his book Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald, Volume 3, pp. 25-70. Krusch shows beyond any doubt that the HSCA PEP experts were correct. He also shows that WC counsel David Belin recognized that the boxes in CE 482 (the Dillard photo) were not in the same position as the boxes in the police evidence photo of the sniper’s nest taken after 1:12 PM (CE 715).

-- If all the experts, including the HSCA PEP experts, who’ve concluded that the Zapruder film shows JFK reacting to a wound starting at right around Z200 and that this shot was fired at around Z186-190, the lone-gunman theory collapses.

Anyone who knows the basics of the JFK case knows that a gunman in the sixth-floor window would have had his view of JFK obstructed from Z166-207 by the intervening oak tree on the north side of Elm Street. This is one reason that the fiercest debate among the HSCA PEP members was over the conclusion that a shot was fired at Z186-190, but a solid majority of the PEP experts supported the finding, to their great credit.

Another indication that JFK was hit at around Z190 and began to react at around Z200 is that Jackie Kennedy, starting at about Z202, clearly notices that something is wrong with JFK. By Z202-204, Jackie has made a sudden sharp turn to the right, toward
her husband. When she reemerges into view at Z223, she is looking intently at
JFK. Obviously, her attention was drawn to him because the reaction that
he had begun at around Z200 had become more noticeable while the car was
behind the freeway sign.

Also, the HSCA PEP experts noted that a strong blur episode begins at around Z189.

Some Oswald-was-the-shooter researchers, recognizing the validity of the Z186-190 shot and JFK’s Z200-207 reaction to it, have suggested that the sixth-floor gunman fired this shot at Z186, during the split-second break in the oak tree's foliage. However, the gunman would have had only 1/18th of a second to aim and fire this shot, but the human eye requires 1/6th of a second to register and react to data. Even the WC admitted it was unlikely the alleged single assassin would have fired during the 56-millisecond break in the foliage at Z186.

For more information on the Z186-190 shot, see “Reactions to Six Shots in the Zapruder Film,” https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nnp3Vch_KMOB_qufAhlQOCLTTS9jqNV0/view.

See also Don Olson and Ralph Turner, “Photographic Evidence and the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy,” Journal of Forensic Sciences, 16:4, October 1971, pp. 399-419, http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/J%20Disk/Journal%20of%20Forensic%20Science/Item%2001.pdf
--- End quote ---

BTW, all three volumes of Barry Krusch's book Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald are available online in PDF format. He has combined all three volumes into a single PDF file online. In the PDF version, his analysis of the HSCA PEP's conclusion that boxes were rearranged within two minutes after the shooting is on pp. 657-690. Here's the link:

https://krusch.com/books/Impossible_Case_Against_Lee_Harvey_Oswald.pdf

Tom Graves:

--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on January 19, 2026, 06:36:41 PM ---[...]

--- End quote ---

Dear Comrade Griffith,

Is this a full-time job for you, or just part-time?

-- Tom

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page