JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Dan O'meara on June 26, 2025, 10:41:12 PM
-
IMO
The CTer alternative to Oswald taking the shots always seems to involve professional hitman/snipers or even teams of them at various points in and around Dealey Plaza. Apparently the plan being to have people firing from all different angles while trying to make it look like there is only one guy firing three shots from a specific location.
Imagine the planning meeting for that!
Surely someone would've pointed out the impossibility of this plan or the stupidity of it.
These guys are professionals after all, highly trained and organised...
Q: ...and how many people should we expect in Dealey Plaza?
A: I'm not sure, it could be hundreds, it could even be thousands. People could be swarming all over the Grassy Knoll and behind the picket fence. We have no way of knowing but we're going to assume the crowds have disappeared by this point.
Q: What's a grassy Noel?
The target is JFK's head.
A professional hit would involve a single shot to the head.
Of the three clearly audible shots reported by over 160 witnesses, only one hits the target. If there are more shots than three, these also miss the target making the whole escapade even more sloppy.
I've never been, but anyone I've ever heard talk about Dealey Plaza are amazed at how small it is, how small the distances are.
For a professional, a head shot in these circumstances is easy.
For an amateur it involves missing the limo and all it's occupants completely, hitting JFK but not in the right place and, eventually a head shot (but not necessarily in that order).
The speed of the three shots implies panic, not a cool head.
And the most important fact is this - JFK is shot through the throat and there is, at the very least, a 5 second gap between this non-fatal shot happening and the fatal head shot. In this 5 second gap anything could happen: the limo speeds off or starts evasive swerving manoeuvres, one of the Secret Service agents actually does his job and makes it to JFK and covers him or JFK slumps all the way over to his left, puts his head in Jackie's lap and is impossible to hit, or any other number of scenarios where the head shot cannot be made.
The point is this - there is a truly massive slice of luck involved in the assassination of JFK.
Professionals would not find themselves in a situation that involved this amount of luck.
The assassination is perpetrated by a non-professional.
IMO
-
[...]
The anomaly-replete* assassination of JFK was committed by a psychologically disturbed former Marine sniper and U-2 radar operator by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald.
*Oswald's missing everything with his first, steeply-downward-angled shot, JFK's reacting more quickly than JBC to being hit by CE-399 because his spinal column was nicked, JFK's being obscurred by the Stemmons Freeway sign in the Zapruder film, Zapruder's pausing his filming for about 17 seconds before resuming at Z-133, Oswald's being able to avoid being seen or heard on his way down to the second-floor lunchroom, Viki Adam's not remembering how long she and Sandra Styles hung out at the window on the 4th floor and then spoke with their supervisor before heading down the stairs, Buell Wesley Frazier's inability (or unwillingness) to correctly remember the length of the paper bag that contained Oswald's disassembled Carcano, JBC's being influenced by his wife to believe that he and JFK were hit by different shots, etc., etc., etc.
-
Well, let's see. I have Proven that those 2 Huge Gates were "Wide Open" per Officer Luke Mooney's WC Testimony, the Towner Film, and the Couch Film (reverse negative). Those Huge Gates were "Wide Open" before, during, and after the Kill Shot. This clearly proves MORE than 1 person was involved in the JFK Assassination. Somebody, (Oswald) had to open those gates, and then someone had to monitor the gates so they were Not closed before being used to exit the TSBD. Those wide open huge gates prove a Conspiracy all by themselves.
-
Well, let's see. I have Proven that those 2 Huge Gates were "Wide Open" per Officer Luke Mooney's WC Testimony, the Towner Film, and the Couch Film (reverse negative). Those Huge Gates were "Wide Open" before, during, and after the Kill Shot. This clearly proves MORE than 1 person was involved in the JFK Assassination. Somebody, (Oswald) had to open those gates, and then someone had to monitor the gates so they were Not closed before being used to exit the TSBD. Those wide-open huge gates prove a Conspiracy all by themselves.
Storing,
Why do YOU write Like THIS?
Regardless, even if those HUGE gates were "Wide Open" before, during and after "the kill shot" (which, at Z-313, followed the CE-399 shot at around Z-222-224 and Oswald's missing-everything shot at hypothetical "Z-124"), the "fact" that they were "wide open" at that time doesn't necessarily mean it had anything to do with the assassination.
LOL!
-
You do Not know anything about the Huge Gates. Only what I have discovered. Those gates had an intercom/buzzer to raise someone to permit entrance. It was secure. This is why I frequently blame the Old Guard JFK Assassination Research Community for this murder being unsolved after 61+ years. These people were/are more concerned with selling books than solving the case. You're Welcome!
-
You do Not know anything about the Huge Gates. Only what I have discovered. Those gates had an intercom/buzzer to raise someone to permit entrance. It was secure. This is why I frequently blame the Old Guard JFK Assassination Research Community for this murder being unsolved after 61+ years. These people were/are more concerned with selling books than solving the case. You're Welcome!
Storing,
Why oh WHY do YOU write Like THIS?
Regardless, you wrote, "Those gates had an intercom/buzzer to raise someone to permit entrance."
What do you mean by "raise someone"?
To contact someone / communicate with someone, or to lift them off the ground?
Question: What was that entrance used for on a daily basis? Only for letting evil, evil, evil CIA assassins into or out of the building?
-
Like I said, YOU do not know anything about the Huge Gates. I have spent some serious time researching this overlooked Entrance/Exit from the TSBD. Instead of thanking me, you choose to rag me. A few months ago, I proved that is Not DPD Motorcycle Officer Haygood on the Darnell Film back inside the Rail Road Yard. Now, I have discovered the Huge Gates being an Exit Ave. from the TSBD. Currently, I am currently researching yet another JFK Assassination ground breaking discovery. ................STAY TUNED ........................
-
A few months ago, I proved that is Not DPD Motorcycle Officer Haygood on the Darnell Film back inside the Rail Road Yard.
Storing,
How did you prove it wasn't Haygood?
If it wasn't Haygood, who was it?
-
You insult me and then ask for help? If a child of mine acted like this, he/she would be sent to their room. I do Not want to insult you, but realize that you are operating from a position of ignorance. We all start from Square 1 with respect to the JFK Assassination. With your attitude, you're going to remain there.
-
[...]
Insult you?
All I did was ask you 1) if the HUGE gates were opened on a daily basis, or only to let evil, evil, evil CIA assassins get into or out of the building, and 2) how you know it wasn't Officer Haygood in the parking lot in Darnell.
-
IMO
The CTer alternative to Oswald taking the shots always seems to involve professional hitman/snipers or even teams of them at various points in and around Dealey Plaza. Apparently the plan being to have people firing from all different angles while trying to make it look like there is only one guy firing three shots from a specific location.
Imagine the planning meeting for that!
Surely someone would've pointed out the impossibility of this plan or the stupidity of it.
These guys are professionals after all, highly trained and organised...
Q: ...and how many people should we expect in Dealey Plaza?
A: I'm not sure, it could be hundreds, it could even be thousands. People could be swarming all over the Grassy Knoll and behind the picket fence. We have no way of knowing but we're going to assume the crowds have disappeared by this point.
Q: What's a grassy Noel?
The target is JFK's head.
A professional hit would involve a single shot to the head.
Of the three clearly audible shots reported by over 160 witnesses, only one hits the target. If there are more shots than three, these also miss the target making the whole escapade even more sloppy.
I've never been, but anyone I've ever heard talk about Dealey Plaza are amazed at how small it is, how small the distances are.
For a professional, a head shot in these circumstances is easy.
For an amateur it involves missing the limo and all it's occupants completely, hitting JFK but not in the right place and, eventually a head shot (but not necessarily in that order).
The speed of the three shots implies panic, not a cool head.
And the most important fact is this - JFK is shot through the throat and there is, at the very least, a 5 second gap between this non-fatal shot happening and the fatal head shot. In this 5 second gap anything could happen: the limo speeds off or starts evasive swerving manoeuvres, one of the Secret Service agents actually does his job and makes it to JFK and covers him or JFK slumps all the way over to his left, puts his head in Jackie's lap and is impossible to hit, or any other number of scenarios where the head shot cannot be made.
The point is this - there is a truly massive slice of luck involved in the assassination of JFK.
Professionals would not find themselves in a situation that involved this amount of luck.
The assassination is perpetrated by a non-professional.
IMO
Maybe not professional, but they got the job done with four shots, and yes luck was on their side.
-
Maybe not professional, but they got the job done with four shots, and yes luck was on their side.
Dear Jarett,
How many bad guys and bad gals do you figure were involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, the getting-away, and the all-important, (and very, very clearly ONGOING!!!) cover up?
Just a few, or oodles and gobs?
-- Tom
-
Dear Jarett,
How many bad guys and bad gals do you figure were involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, the getting-away, and the all-important, (and very, very clearly ONGOING!!!) cover up?
Just a few, or oodles and gobs?
-- Tom
The only cover up was the SS and FBI for not doing their job. The mafia had him killed and then silenced Oswald.
-
The only cover up was the SS and FBI for not doing their job. The mafia had him killed and then silenced Oswald.
Why do you have a psychological need to believe the assassination was a conspiracy?
-
IMO
The CTer alternative to Oswald taking the shots always seems to involve professional hitman/snipers or even teams of them at various points in and around Dealey Plaza. Apparently the plan being to have people firing from all different angles while trying to make it look like there is only one guy firing three shots from a specific location.
Imagine the planning meeting for that!
Surely someone would've pointed out the impossibility of this plan or the stupidity of it.
These guys are professionals after all, highly trained and organised...
Q: ...and how many people should we expect in Dealey Plaza?
A: I'm not sure, it could be hundreds, it could even be thousands. People could be swarming all over the Grassy Knoll and behind the picket fence. We have no way of knowing but we're going to assume the crowds have disappeared by this point.
Q: What's a grassy Noel?
The target is JFK's head.
A professional hit would involve a single shot to the head.
Of the three clearly audible shots reported by over 160 witnesses, only one hits the target. If there are more shots than three, these also miss the target making the whole escapade even more sloppy.
I've never been, but anyone I've ever heard talk about Dealey Plaza are amazed at how small it is, how small the distances are.
For a professional, a head shot in these circumstances is easy.
For an amateur it involves missing the limo and all it's occupants completely, hitting JFK but not in the right place and, eventually a head shot (but not necessarily in that order).
The speed of the three shots implies panic, not a cool head.
And the most important fact is this - JFK is shot through the throat and there is, at the very least, a 5 second gap between this non-fatal shot happening and the fatal head shot. In this 5 second gap anything could happen: the limo speeds off or starts evasive swerving manoeuvres, one of the Secret Service agents actually does his job and makes it to JFK and covers him or JFK slumps all the way over to his left, puts his head in Jackie's lap and is impossible to hit, or any other number of scenarios where the head shot cannot be made.
The point is this - there is a truly massive slice of luck involved in the assassination of JFK.
Professionals would not find themselves in a situation that involved this amount of luck.
The assassination is perpetrated by a non-professional.
IMO
One interesting thing about the Grassy Knoll is that it is usually depicted from the Elm St. perspective where it appears to offer a secluded shooting location. In fact, on the backside of the fence/treeline it is wide open to half of Dallas. It is the very last place that anyone would put themselves with a rifle.
-
While I tend to agree with the main point of the first post, I think that often times we can create conditions where “luck” becomes more likely to happen. The limited time that the assassin apparently had to plan his ambush made things more difficult. Especially for him to “cover his tracks.” However, consider the items he managed to get accomplished in order to be able to get three shots off before anyone could stop him.
1. He managed to retrieve the rifle and sneak it into the TSBD without any apparent suspicions being voiced before the assassination. This is even though he didn’t drive and had to hitch a ride from BWF.
2. He planned his ambush to be from behind and above the target. This gave him not only the element of surprise, but also maximized the time he would have to fire multiple shots.
3. He managed to find and select a position that was visually well shielded from both outside and inside the TSBD. While sitting on the box seat, he was also able to stay out of sight of the SS agents as they approached the TSBD on Houston Street by simply sitting up straight. The boxes in the window would have made it more difficult for any of the SS agents to see him even if they had looked back at that window during the shooting. And keeping his position essentially initially undetected by LEOs he was able to then have a reasonable chance to escape after the assassination.
4. This position was also well selected for having a “kill zone” where the target was moving almost directly away from him. This substantially increased his chances of hitting the target.
5. His ability to act calm and blend in with other people after the assassination helped his escape efforts (for a while). This was lost after the Tippit murder and all the frantic police activity in the area and subsequently led to his capture.
-
One interesting thing about the Grassy Knoll is that it is usually depicted from the Elm St. perspective where it appears to offer a secluded shooting location. In fact, on the backside of the fence/treeline it is wide open to half of Dallas. It is the very last place that anyone would put themselves with a rifle.
Per Skinny Holland, that parking lot on the other side of the Picket Fence was jam packed with cars. Holland claimed that he and his railroad workers crew that ran from their position atop the Triple Underpass to that parking lot, had to climb over cars to move across the parking lot. A shooter hugging that picket fence would be tough to spot within that ocean of autos. This obstructed view also casts doubt on the Ed Hoffman account of seeing a shooter inside that same parking lot. And Hoffman was standing roughly 2 football fields away.
-
While I tend to agree with the main point of the first post, I think that often times we can create conditions where “luck” becomes more likely to happen. The limited time that the assassin apparently had to plan his ambush made things more difficult. Especially for him to “cover his tracks.” However, consider the items he managed to get accomplished in order to be able to get three shots off before anyone could stop him.
1. He managed to retrieve the rifle and sneak it into the TSBD without any apparent suspicions being voiced before the assassination. This is even though he didn’t drive and had to hitch a ride from BWF.
2. He planned his ambush to be from behind and above the target. This gave him not only the element of surprise, but also maximized the time he would have to fire multiple shots.
3. He managed to find and select a position that was visually well shielded from both outside and inside the TSBD. While sitting on the box seat, he was also able to stay out of sight of the SS agents as they approached the TSBD on Houston Street by simply sitting up straight. The boxes in the window would have made it more difficult for any of the SS agents to see him even if they had looked back at that window during the shooting. And keeping his position essentially initially undetected by LEOs he was able to then have a reasonable chance to escape after the assassination.
4. This position was also well selected for having a “kill zone” where the target was moving almost directly away from him. This substantially increased his chances of hitting the target.
5. His ability to act calm and blend in with other people after the assassination helped his escape efforts (for a while). This was lost after the Tippit murder and all the frantic police activity in the area and subsequently led to his capture.
There was at least 1 previously planned attempt to kill JFK via the use of a tall building. That attempt was kibosh'd. Point being, the "plan" inside Dealey Plaza did not necessarily start from scratch.
-
Per Skinny Holland, that parking lot on the other side of the Picket Fence was jam packed with cars. Holland claimed that he and his railroad workers crew that ran from their position atop the Triple Underpass to that parking lot, had to climb over cars to move across the parking lot. A shooter hugging that picket fence would be tough to spot within that ocean of autos. This obstructed view also casts doubt on the Ed Hoffman account of seeing a shooter inside that same parking lot. And Hoffman was standing roughly 2 football fields away.
There is no way that someone is going to stand out in the wide open with a rifle in that location. And it doesn't make any sense to frame Oswald as the shooter from behind JFK but to place another shooter to his right and front on the Grassy Knoll. If someone else were going to do this and Oswald was the patsy, then they fire the shot from the location that they were going to frame Oswald and use his rifle. Another shooter at a different location using a different rifle is laughable as a plan.
-
There is no way that someone is going to stand out in the wide open with a rifle in that location. And it doesn't make any sense to frame Oswald as the shooter from behind JFK but to place another shooter to his right and front on the Grassy Knoll. If someone else were going to do this and Oswald was the patsy, then they fire the shot from the location that they were going to frame Oswald and use his rifle. Another shooter at a different location using a different rifle is laughable as a plan.
You say, "..stand out in the wide open". As described by Holland, that is not how the parking lot at the top of the grassy knoll looked at roughly 12:30pm 11/22/63. The Ed Hoffman visual presentation of that "wide open/empty" parking lot on, "The Men Who Killed Kennedy", is not accurate per Holland. Mark Lane filmed a Holland walk-through which detailed his journey from atop the Triple Underpass to/through the parking lot. During this walk-through, Holland describes the 11/22/63 jam packed parking lot. This Lane/Holland walk-through is posted on You Tube.
-
Why do you have a psychological need to believe the assassination was a conspiracy?
Because Oswald only fired three times, and there was a fourth shot from the front. Many of the witnesses heard the first at Z-224 and bang-bang at the time of the head shot. For this scenario to work no shot was fired at Z-160, but we have visual proof there was.
-
Because Oswald only fired three times, and there was a fourth shot from the front. Many of the witnesses heard the first at Z-224 and bang-bang at the time of the head shot. For this scenario to work no shot was fired at Z-160, but we have visual proof there was.
Where did this "fourth shot" come from?
-
61+ yrs later NOBODY has placed Oswald in that sniper's window or even on the TSBD 6th Floor at 12:30 PM. And now that I have proven the Huge Gates attached to the TSBD were "wide open", (Officer Luke Mooney WC Testimony), a possible shooter + spotter could have easily entered and exited the TSBD. Those "wide open" Huge Gates would mandate having a man on them to prevent their possibly being closed for whatever reason while the shooter + spotter were inside the TSBD. So we got a possible 2 men inside the sniper's nest + 1 man on the Huge Gates, + an Inside Man responsible for setting up the sniper's nest and opening the Huge Gates. Minimum 4 guys total. The JFK Assassination was Not "sloppy and amateurish". It was very well planned.
-
61+ yrs later NOBODY has placed Oswald in that sniper's window or even on the TSBD 6th Floor at 12:30 PM. And now that I have proven the Huge Gates attached to the TSBD were "wide open", (Officer Luke Mooney WC Testimony), a possible shooter + spotter could have easily entered and exited the TSBD. Those "wide open" Huge Gates would mandate having a man on them to prevent their possibly being closed for whatever reason while the shooter + spotter were inside the TSBD. So we got a possible 2 men inside the sniper's nest + 1 man on the Huge Gates, + an Inside Man responsible for setting up the sniper's nest and opening the Huge Gates. Minimum 4 guys total. The JFK Assassination was Not "sloppy and amateurish". It was very well planned.
Storing,
You haven't proved Jack you-know-what except for how zombified-by-KGB* disinformation you are.
*Today's SVR and FSB
-
The anomaly-replete* assassination of JFK was committed by a psychologically disturbed former Marine sniper and U-2 radar operator by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald.
This is a strong theory and has a lot going for it
*Oswald's missing everything with his first, steeply-downward-angled shot, JFK's reacting more quickly than JBC to being hit by CE-399 because his spinal column was nicked, JFK's being obscurred by the Stemmons Freeway sign in the Zapruder film, Zapruder's pausing his filming for about 17 seconds before resuming at Z-133, Oswald's being able to avoid being seen or heard on his way down to the second-floor lunchroom, Viki Adam's not remembering how long she and Sandra Styles hung out at the window on the 4th floor and then spoke with their supervisor before heading down the stairs, Buell Wesley Frazier's inability (or unwillingness) to correctly remember the length of the paper bag that contained Oswald's disassembled Carcano, JBC's being influenced by his wife to believe that he and JFK were hit by different shots, etc., etc., etc.
"*Oswald's missing everything with his first, steeply-downward-angled shot,"
Nonsense.
"steeply-downward-angled shot" :D
"JFK's reacting more quickly than JBC to being hit"
Nonsense.
"hit by CE-399"
Nonsense.
" Viki Adam's not remembering how long she and Sandra Styles hung out at the window on the 4th floor"
Nonsense.
"and then spoke with their supervisor before heading down the stairs,"
Citation please.
"JBC's being influenced by his wife to believe that he and JFK were hit by different shots,"
Nonsense.
You clearly know nothing about the assassination.
-
Well, let's see. I have Proven that those 2 Huge Gates were "Wide Open" per Officer Luke Mooney's WC Testimony, the Towner Film, and the Couch Film (reverse negative). Those Huge Gates were "Wide Open" before, during, and after the Kill Shot. This clearly proves MORE than 1 person was involved in the JFK Assassination. Somebody, (Oswald) had to open those gates, and then someone had to monitor the gates so they were Not closed before being used to exit the TSBD. Those wide open huge gates prove a Conspiracy all by themselves.
Hate to burst your bubble, Royell, but I dealt with the "Huge Gates" years ago and in much more detail than you have.
It's in this thread - https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3078.msg119172.html#msg119172
It starts at Reply#559, read on from there.
All it proves is that the building was not locked down properly. That's all.
It does NOT prove that more than one person was involved in the assassination.
These gates were not closed for at least ten minutes. More importantly, the door to the west of the TSBD building wasn't secured at any point during the day. People could come and go as they pleased through this entrance.
-
Maybe not professional, but they got the job done with four shots, and yes luck was on their side.
So, you agree the assassination was not professional. That's the point I was making.
It was not carried out by someone hired/contracted for their specific skill as a marksman.
It would appear to be carried out by someone familiar with rifles but not particularly skilled.
-
One interesting thing about the Grassy Knoll is that it is usually depicted from the Elm St. perspective where it appears to offer a secluded shooting location. In fact, on the backside of the fence/treeline it is wide open to half of Dallas. It is the very last place that anyone would put themselves with a rifle.
Agreed.
Because there was hardly anyone in this area during the actual shooting a lot of 'researchers' fail to grasp that no-one knew prior to the shooting that this would be the case.
They never consider the actual planning stage of their pet theory.
The area around the GK could have been swarming with hundreds of people. The car park was completely wide open, as we can see below.
Nobody, in their right mind, would plan to take a shot from behind the picket fence as they would have absolutely no idea as to how many people would be in this area on the day. It's a ludicrous notion.
(https://i.postimg.cc/DwJsqgKC/TSBDarialbehind.png) (https://postimages.org/)
-
While I tend to agree with the main point of the first post, I think that often times we can create conditions where “luck” becomes more likely to happen. The limited time that the assassin apparently had to plan his ambush made things more difficult. Especially for him to “cover his tracks.” However, consider the items he managed to get accomplished in order to be able to get three shots off before anyone could stop him.
1. He managed to retrieve the rifle and sneak it into the TSBD without any apparent suspicions being voiced before the assassination. This is even though he didn’t drive and had to hitch a ride from BWF.
2. He planned his ambush to be from behind and above the target. This gave him not only the element of surprise, but also maximized the time he would have to fire multiple shots.
3. He managed to find and select a position that was visually well shielded from both outside and inside the TSBD. While sitting on the box seat, he was also able to stay out of sight of the SS agents as they approached the TSBD on Houston Street by simply sitting up straight. The boxes in the window would have made it more difficult for any of the SS agents to see him even if they had looked back at that window during the shooting. And keeping his position essentially initially undetected by LEOs he was able to then have a reasonable chance to escape after the assassination.
4. This position was also well selected for having a “kill zone” where the target was moving almost directly away from him. This substantially increased his chances of hitting the target.
5. His ability to act calm and blend in with other people after the assassination helped his escape efforts (for a while). This was lost after the Tippit murder and all the frantic police activity in the area and subsequently led to his capture.
I think you're missing the point I was making about the very large element of luck involved in the actual shooting.
In a professional hit, luck is not a factor.
The head shot is an easy shot for a professional. The distances involved are small and there is only minimal lateral movement of the target. To miss the limo completely is not an option for a professional. Even the shot that passes through JFK's throat is a 'miss' as the target is the head.
There is then, at the very minimum, a period of 5 seconds between the non-fatal throat shot and the fatal head shot. This is where the large slice of luck comes in because anything could've happened in this interval that could have rendered the head shot impossible to take.
Luckily, for the shooter, JFK stayed upright and no-one came to his assistance.
I'm surprised that the sloppy and amateurish nature of the assassination isn't used more often by those who believe Oswald was the shooter.
-
Hate to burst your bubble, Royell, but I dealt with the "Huge Gates" years ago and in much more detail than you have.
It's in this thread - https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3078.msg119172.html#msg119172
It starts at Reply#559, read on from there.
All it proves is that the building was not locked down properly. That's all.
It does NOT prove that more than one person was involved in the assassination.
These gates were not closed for at least ten minutes. More importantly, the door to the west of the TSBD building wasn't secured at any point during the day. People could come and go as they pleased through this entrance.
The link provided above jumps into the middle of the story of the Huge Gates. On top of that, those images show The Gates to be only "ajar". They are not "Wide Open". This is what happens when you jump into the middle of a mystery. You routinely still have a mystery on your hands. The images above were captured After the Kill Shot. What do we know about the status of The Gates before the Kill Shot was fired? Look at the Towner Film as the JFK Limo is turning from Houston St onto Elm St. Where The Gates are supposed to be, we see nothing but a Square Black Hole. Why is that? It is because The Gates and the bright placards on them are Not There. The 2 Huge Gates are "Wide Open" at this point in time prior to the Kill Shot. And for the record, both Gates open INWARD. If you look at a reverse negative of the Couch Film, those Huge Gates are still "Wide Open" (inward), about 30 seconds after the Kill Shot. We see on the Martin Film showing Euins on the back of Officer Harkness 3 wheel motorcycle, that The Gates are only "ajar" at this point in time. The 2 gates then are roughly 2 feet apart from each other. This would be at about 6 or 7 minutes after the Kill Shot. Officer Harkness gave WC Testimony verifying his making a 12:36 police radio transmission regarding his having a witness, (Euins), with respect to seeing shot(s) fired from the TSBD. (Mandatory to read/know sworn testimony if you seriously want to solve this case). So, how did the Huge Gates go from being "Wide Open" on the Towner Film to simply being "ajar" on the Martin Film at 12:36-12:37? Officer Luke Mooney gave WC Testimony that he and 2 other officers found those Huge Gates were "Wide Open" as they walked down the Elm St Extension. The 3 officers were inside the train yard when they received orders to secure the TSBD, and they headed down the Elm Ext to do such when they found The Gates "Wide Open". They walked through The Gates and then the 3 of them "Closed" the gates, but they did Not lock them shut. This then puts the Gates in their "ajar" status. (Martin Film). Mooney and the 2 officers then entered the TSBD from the other side of these Huge Gates. Their entry into the TSBD 1st floor found them extremely close to the Stairwell and the Freight Elevators. The 2 officers went up the stairwell while Mooney used the freight elevator. This was the shooter(s) avenue of escape from the TSBD. Straight down the stairwell and then just feet away from walking through the "Wide Open" Huge Gates and mingling into the shocked crowd on the Elm Ext and around the TSBD.
-
The link provided above jumps into the middle of the story of the Huge Gates. On top of that, those images show The Gates to be only "ajar". They are not "Wide Open". This is what happens when you jump into the middle of a mystery. You routinely still have a mystery on your hands. The images above were captured After the Kill Shot. What do we know about the status of The Gates before the Kill Shot was fired? Look at the Towner Film as the JFK Limo is turning from Houston St onto Elm St. Where The Gates are supposed to be, we see nothing but a Square Black Hole. Why is that? It is because The Gates and the bright placards on them are Not There. The 2 Huge Gates are "Wide Open" at this point in time prior to the Kill Shot. And for the record, both Gates open INWARD. If you look at a reverse negative of the Couch Film, those Huge Gates are still "Wide Open" (inward), about 30 seconds after the Kill Shot. We see on the Martin Film showing Euins on the back of Officer Harkness 3 wheel motorcycle, that The Gates are only "ajar" at this point in time. The 2 gates then are roughly 2 feet apart from each other. This would be at about 6 or 7 minutes after the Kill Shot. Officer Harkness gave WC Testimony verifying his making a 12:36 police radio transmission regarding his having a witness, (Euins), with respect to seeing shot(s) fired from the TSBD. (Mandatory to read/know sworn testimony if you seriously want to solve this case). So, how did the Huge Gates go from being "Wide Open" on the Towner Film to simply being "ajar" on the Martin Film at 12:36-12:37? Officer Luke Mooney gave WC Testimony that he and 2 other officers found those Huge Gates were "Wide Open" as they walked down the Elm St Extension. The 3 officers were inside the train yard when they received orders to secure the TSBD, and they headed down the Elm Ext to do such when they found The Gates "Wide Open". They walked through The Gates and then the 3 of them "Closed" the gates, but they did Not lock them shut. This then puts the Gates in their "ajar" status. (Martin Film). Mooney and the 2 officers then entered the TSBD from the other side of these Huge Gates. Their entry into the TSBD 1st floor found them extremely close to the Stairwell and the Freight Elevators. The 2 officers went up the stairwell while Mooney used the freight elevator. This was the shooter(s) avenue of escape from the TSBD. Straight down the stairwell and then just feet away from walking through the "Wide Open" Huge Gates and mingling into the shocked crowd on the Elm Ext and around the TSBD.
This has got nothing to do with the topic of this thread so I'd like you to take it somewhere else, Royell.
I posted - "It starts at Reply#559, read on from there." - but you didn't read on, did you Royell?
Start your own thread about your Huge Gates mystery.
If you have anything to contribute to the topic of this thread feel free to do so.
-
This has got nothing to do with the topic of this thread so I'd like you to take it somewhere else, Royell.
I posted - "It starts at Reply#559, read on from there." - but you didn't read on, did you Royell?
Start your own thread about your Huge Gates mystery.
If you have anything to contribute to the topic of this thread feel free to do so.
The moral of this story is that Knowing sworn testimony is vitally important to solving the JFK murder. It's easy to just examine the assassination images. This is what most people do. It is laborious to read through the sworn testimonies and then retain them to memory for future reference when applicable. There are diamonds frequently buried deep within testimony. Diamonds were sprinkled within the Mooney testimony which broke the Huge Gates TSBD Entrance/Exit route wide open. The same was true with the diamonds I discovered in the Officer Haygood/Tague testimonies. Those and the photo of Haygood standing atop the Triple Underpass proved that we are Not seeing Officer Haygood on the Darnell Film. And now I am digging into #3. ......................STAY TUNED ..........................
-
So, you agree the assassination was not professional. That's the point I was making.
It was not carried out by someone hired/contracted for their specific skill as a marksman.
It would appear to be carried out by someone familiar with rifles but not particularly skilled.
Professional enough they had a man in a secret service disguise. Classic Mafia.
-
Professional enough they had a man in a secret service disguise. Classic Mafia.
Why do you have a psychological need to believe the JFKA was a conspiracy?
-
Professional enough they had a man in a secret service disguise. Classic Mafia.
So, you start off by saying - "Maybe not professional" - and now it's - "Professional enough"
I assume you believe there was a shot from the GK and you're just going to ignore the points being made about how ludicrous an idea that is in terms of planning the assassination.
The GK could have been swarming with people, there could have been hundreds of people in that area. The planners had no way of knowing what they would be dealing with. There could have been hundreds lining Elm Street. And behind the picket fence was a car park - people parking cars, returning to cars etc.
The car park area was wide open. Look at the pic below, there is no way to control this area:
(https://i.postimg.cc/DwJsqgKC/TSBDarialbehind.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Try to put yourself in the position of someone planning the assassination.
How sensible does a shot from behind the picket fence look now?
One of the main reasons why people believe there was a shot from behind the picket fence is because so many people run up to that area immediately following the shooting.
Motorcycle cop, Clyde Haygood, heard this transmission on his radio from police Chief Curry:
"Get a man on top of that triple underpass and see what happened up there".
That's exactly what Haygood does. He gets off his bike and races up to the triple underpass - not up behind the picket fence.
A group of people see a cop running up there and decided to follow and this causes a cascade effect of people running up to that general
area just because they've seen other people running up to that area.
-
At no time during Officer Haygood's WC Testimony does he say he heard Chief Curry's command, "get a man on top of that Triple Underpass.......". Haygood did testify that he saw people on the ground pointing back up to the railroad yard, along with a couple of people being headed back up that way. This prompted Haygood to park his motorcycle at the curb and then run up the grassy knoll toward the railroad yard. This is one of the many reasons that being familiar with Sworn Testimony is important. It prevents Urban Legends from being created and/or passed along.
-
I think you're missing the point I was making about the very large element of luck involved in the actual shooting.
In a professional hit, luck is not a factor.
The head shot is an easy shot for a professional. The distances involved are small and there is only minimal lateral movement of the target. To miss the limo completely is not an option for a professional. Even the shot that passes through JFK's throat is a 'miss' as the target is the head.
There is then, at the very minimum, a period of 5 seconds between the non-fatal throat shot and the fatal head shot. This is where the large slice of luck comes in because anything could've happened in this interval that could have rendered the head shot impossible to take.
Luckily, for the shooter, JFK stayed upright and no-one came to his assistance.
I'm surprised that the sloppy and amateurish nature of the assassination isn't used more often by those who believe Oswald was the shooter.
I said that I agreed with the main point of your original post. I simply pointed out that the assassin did a lot of things right in order to be able to take advantage of the “luck”. Frankly, I do not think that any professional assassin would have chosen Dealey Plaza for an assassination attempt in the first place. Add that one to your list if you wish (you are welcome).
-
Maybe it’s not quite as sloppy as it may appear.
If the conspirator shooter IS using the MC rifle that Oswald had been “given”? (For a period of time and taken photo of) then this shooter did a pretty amazing job of scoring a hit on JFK on his FIRST shot which is at Z223-224.
Then in another 4.8 secs after that he got the 313 head kill shot ( an 8”diameter target moving away at 8mph at about 90 yds.) And he did that with irons sights most likely because the scope was misaligned. Imo, that’s NOT an amateur shooter.
Then just to make sure that at least a couple of witness would see the rifle at the 6th floor SE window sticking out the window, the shooter fired a 3rd shot about 2 secs AFTER 313, which was not really aimed , and hit the curb near Tague.
This conspirator shooter probably got into the TSBD with the MC rifle on the late night Thursday, and hid himself on the 7th floor attic space, He came down to the 6th floor at 12:15pm to the SW 6th floor window where he was seen by Arnold Rowland. He saw BR Williams so retreated and hid himself until NRW had left the floor. The shooter then moved to SE window to get a better shot angle.
Why the conspirator shooter did not just leave the rifle in plain view at the SE window? Maybe he thought that would be too obvious and cause suspicion of a set up of Oswald, otherwise I’m not sure.
How this shooter escaped from 6th floor and past Baker and Truly as they were watching Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom, would be to use the west elevator ( instead of Dougherty).
If Dougherty could have used the west elevator and not be seen by Dorothy Garner, Baker, Truly, or Eddie Piper, then so could the shooter.
What was Oswald carrying in the paper bag that was under his armpit and in the cup of his hand? If they had found curtain rods or a roll of blinds in a paper bag several months later, say in the storage room by the front stairs, would anyone have reported that? Given all the other fake documents , destroyed notes, and rearranging SN etc , it’s doubtful.
-
I believe that Assassin(s) Entry and Exit from the TSBD was done via the Huge Gates that were attached to the side of the TSBD along the Elm St. Extension. Officer Luke Mooney gave WC Testimony regarding his walking through these "Wide Open" gates, about 5-6 minutes after the Kill Shot. Mooney then entered the TSBD 1st floor in very close proximity to the stairwell and freight elevators. These gates were "wide open" on the Towner Film prior to the Kill Shot, and are still "Wide Open" after the Kill Shot, (Couch Film). (The gates opened Inward). After walking through the Huge Gates, Officer Mooney testified as to closing them. His closing of these gates would be at about 6-7 minutes after the Kill Shot. (The gates can be seen to be closed on the Martin Film as Amos Euins is filmed on the back of the Officer Harkin's 3 wheel motorcycle racing down the Elm St Ext). The assassin(s) could have easily walked through the "wide open" Huge Gates shortly before shots were fired. They then entered the TSBD 1st Floor and immediately walked up the close by stairwell to the 6th floor. They exited the TSBD in reverse manner and simply mixed into the stunned eyewitnesses outside of the TSBD.
-
At no time during Officer Haygood's WC Testimony does he say he heard Chief Curry's command, "get a man on top of that Triple Underpass.......". Haygood did testify that he saw people on the ground pointing back up to the railroad yard, along with a couple of people being headed back up that way. This prompted Haygood to park his motorcycle at the curb and then run up the grassy knoll toward the railroad yard. This is one of the many reasons that being familiar with Sworn Testimony is important. It prevents Urban Legends from being created and/or passed along.
You are quite correct, Royell.
That was an assumption on my part and should have been stated as such.
Seconds after the shooting, Curry gives the command - "Get a man on top of that triple underpass and see what happened up there".
Haygood has a radio on his bike so can hear the transmission and does exactly what Curry commanded but, as you correctly point out, Haygood never specifically states that this is what happened.
Just to get back to the point of the topic...
...the argument for 'teams' of professionals or multiple professional marksmen often revolves around a shot from the GK.
There are a few reasons often cited to support this argument, one of which is that a large number of people seem to head up to the picket fence area in the immediate aftermath of the shooting which suggests a shot came from there.
In fact, this is not the case.
Apart from one man who races up the steps on seeing the head shot (I believe his wife and infant child are on a bench at the top of the steps) there is a gap of approximately 30 seconds before anyone thinks to run up the GK.
This excellent Cabluck/Cancellare composite from Robin Unger's gallery shows the exact moment (I've added the blue letters for enhancement). These four kids appear to be running after Haygood and end up following him to the top of the triple underpass.
(https://i.postimg.cc/3xwWY2hF/cabluckcancellarecomposite.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
The hordes of people approaching from the corner of Main and Houston, across the open grassy area of Dealey Plaza, see people running around the GK area and head for that. It is nothing to do with hearing shots from that area and witnesses like Marilyn Sitzman, stood feet away from this area, completely refute any notion of an audible shot from this area.
-
I believe that Assassin(s) Entry and Exit from the TSBD was done via the Huge Gates that were attached to the side of the TSBD along the Elm St. Extension. Officer Luke Mooney gave WC Testimony regarding his walking through these "Wide Open" gates, about 5-6 minutes after the Kill Shot. Mooney then entered the TSBD 1st floor in very close proximity to the stairwell and freight elevators. These gates were "wide open" on the Towner Film prior to the Kill Shot, and are still "Wide Open" after the Kill Shot, (Couch Film). (The gates opened Inward). After walking through the Huge Gates, Officer Mooney testified as to closing them. His closing of these gates would be at about 6-7 minutes after the Kill Shot. (The gates can be seen to be closed on the Martin Film as Amos Euins is filmed on the back of the Officer Harkin's 3 wheel motorcycle racing down the Elm St Ext). The assassin(s) could have easily walked through the "wide open" Huge Gates shortly before shots were fired. They then entered the TSBD 1st Floor and immediately walked up the close by stairwell to the 6th floor. They exited the TSBD in reverse manner and simply mixed into the stunned eyewitnesses outside of the TSBD.
I find it really rude and aggressive that you are constantly trying to derail this thread even though you've been asked not to.
As you are clearly too lazy to do it, I will start a thread to deal with your Huge Gates theory.
If you have nothing to add to the actual topic of this thread kindly refrain from posting.
-
IMO
The CTer alternative to Oswald taking the shots always seems to involve professional hitman/snipers or even teams of them at various points in and around Dealey Plaza. Apparently the plan being to have people firing from all different angles while trying to make it look like there is only one guy firing three shots from a specific location.
Imagine the planning meeting for that!
Surely someone would've pointed out the impossibility of this plan or the stupidity of it.
These guys are professionals after all, highly trained and organised...
Q: ...and how many people should we expect in Dealey Plaza?
A: I'm not sure, it could be hundreds, it could even be thousands. People could be swarming all over the Grassy Knoll and behind the picket fence. We have no way of knowing but we're going to assume the crowds have disappeared by this point.
Q: What's a grassy Noel?
The target is JFK's head.
A professional hit would involve a single shot to the head.
Of the three clearly audible shots reported by over 160 witnesses, only one hits the target. If there are more shots than three, these also miss the target making the whole escapade even more sloppy.
I've never been, but anyone I've ever heard talk about Dealey Plaza are amazed at how small it is, how small the distances are.
For a professional, a head shot in these circumstances is easy.
For an amateur it involves missing the limo and all it's occupants completely, hitting JFK but not in the right place and, eventually a head shot (but not necessarily in that order).
The speed of the three shots implies panic, not a cool head.
And the most important fact is this - JFK is shot through the throat and there is, at the very least, a 5 second gap between this non-fatal shot happening and the fatal head shot. In this 5 second gap anything could happen: the limo speeds off or starts evasive swerving manoeuvres, one of the Secret Service agents actually does his job and makes it to JFK and covers him or JFK slumps all the way over to his left, puts his head in Jackie's lap and is impossible to hit, or any other number of scenarios where the head shot cannot be made.
The point is this - there is a truly massive slice of luck involved in the assassination of JFK.
Professionals would not find themselves in a situation that involved this amount of luck.
The assassination is perpetrated by a non-professional.
IMO
There is a much simpler, more logical conspiracy scenario, one that has plenty of precedents in other plots and in numerous military operations. It is simply this: The plan was to kill JFK with one, two, or three shots being fired, ideally just one or two shots, so that the shooting could be attributed to a single gunman. However, the shooting did not go according to plan, just as many carefully planned and rehearsed military operations have not gone according to plan.
The goal of the shooting, to kill JFK, was achieved, but several of the shots missed, and one of the missed shots hit Connally. Almost immediately, the news media, being spoon-fed by official sources, assumed only three shots were fired and that there was only one gunman. The throat entry wound was initially explained by the claim that JFK had turned around to look behind the limo, but then came the autopsy report several days later. The WC was forced to ignore all the accounts of extra missed shots and of shots from the grassy knoll, to dismiss Gov. Connally's compelling testimony, and to concoct the ridiculous single-bullet theory. The military personnel at the autopsy were placed under gag orders and threatened with court martial if they failed to obey. The Parkland doctors' troubling accounts were dismissed as the sincere errors of men who were working too hurriedly to accurately identify and diagnose the wounds, and some of the Parkland doctors were pressured or felt obliged to change their accounts to conform with the autopsy report (but others did not).
For the first two years or so, this cover-up story worked and was widely accepted. However, by 1967, with the publication of Mark Lane's book Rush to Judgment in August 1966 and Sylvia Meagher's book Accessories After the Fact in 1967, this began to change. Polls began to show a sizable majority of Americans rejecting the lone-gunman explanation.
-
There is Nothing "sloppy and amateurish" about having those Huge Gates "wide open" BEFORE the JFK Limo rolled down Houston and then Elm St. This easy/clandestine access and exit to the TSBD was planned. And it directly addresses the topic of this thread.
-
There is Nothing "sloppy and amateurish" about having those Huge Gates "wide open" BEFORE the JFK Limo rolled down Houston and then Elm St. This easy/clandestine access and exit to the TSBD was planned. And it directly addresses the topic of this thread.
Why did they have to be "wide open".
What's professional about having two gigantic gates "wide open".
How does that address the topic of this thread.
Why can't the gates be simply in the closed position but unlocked?
Why are your professional conspirators advertising to the world where their point of entry and exit is?
-
There is a much simpler, more logical conspiracy scenario, one that has plenty of precedents in other plots and in numerous military operations. It is simply this: The plan was to kill JFK with one, two, or three shots being fired, ideally just one or two shots, so that the shooting could be attributed to a single gunman. However, the shooting did not go according to plan, just as many carefully planned and rehearsed military operations have not gone according to plan.
The goal of the shooting, to kill JFK, was achieved, but several of the shots missed, and one of the missed shots hit Connally. Almost immediately, the news media, being spoon-fed by official sources, assumed only three shots were fired and that there was only one gunman. The throat entry wound was initially explained by the claim that JFK had turned around to look behind the limo, but then came the autopsy report several days later. The WC was forced to ignore all the accounts of extra missed shots and of shots from the grassy knoll, to dismiss Gov. Connally's compelling testimony, and to concoct the ridiculous single-bullet theory. The military personnel at the autopsy were placed under gag orders and threatened with court martial if they failed to obey. The Parkland doctors' troubling accounts were dismissed as the sincere errors of men who were working too hurriedly to accurately identify and diagnose the wounds, and some of the Parkland doctors were pressured or felt obliged to change their accounts to conform with the autopsy report (but others did not).
For the first two years or so, this cover-up story worked and was widely accepted. However, by 1967, with the publication of Mark Lane's book Rush to Judgment in August 1966 and Sylvia Meagher's book Accessories After the Fact in 1967, this began to change. Polls began to show a sizable majority of Americans rejecting the lone-gunman explanation.
Just so I understand correctly:
You are postulating that there was at least two, if not more, military-trained professional marksmen taking the shots?
Is that correct?
You agree the distances are small and the head shot is an incredibly easy shot to make for an expert marksman?
You agree only one shot actually found it's mark (JFK's head)?
How many shots do you propose actually missed their mark (JFK's head)?
LATER EDIT: And what is your opinion about the arguments put forward in this thread for choosing the position behind the picket fence to take a shot?
-
Why did they have to be "wide open".
What's professional about having two gigantic gates "wide open".
How does that address the topic of this thread.
Why can't the gates be simply in the closed position but unlocked?
Why are your professional conspirators advertising to the world where their point of entry and exit is?
The Huge Gates open Inward. They were Not hanging outward for everyone to see. Everyone's eyes were trained down Houston St and Elm St in order to see the JFK Motorcade. People were Not looking down the Elm St Ext in anticipation of the JFK Motorcade arrival. Personally, I believe having those gates being open was Oswald's responsibility. That, and preparing the sniper's nest. Then he went to the 2nd floor lunchroom as instructed. They probably had a man on those gates to prevent a good samaritan from locking them shut.
-
The Huge Gates open Inward. They were Not hanging outward for everyone to see. Everyone's eyes were trained down Houston St and Elm St in order to see the JFK Motorcade. People were Not looking down the Elm St Ext in anticipation of the JFK Motorcade arrival. Personally, I believe having those gates being open was Oswald's responsibility. That, and preparing the sniper's nest. Then he went to the 2nd floor lunchroom as instructed. They probably had a man on those gates to prevent a good samaritan from locking them shut.
:D :D :D
You make it all sound so professional.
Was the guy watching the gates a specially trained gate-watcher?
For the third time, please stop trying to derail this thread and take your Huge Gates nonsense to the thread I created for you because you're too lazy to do it for yourself.
-
:D :D :D
You make it all sound so professional.
Was the guy watching the gates a specially trained gate-watcher?
For the third time, please stop trying to derail this thread and take your Huge Gates nonsense to the thread I created for you because you're too lazy to do it for yourself.
YOU asked ME several questions. Above, you ask me even another question about the "gate-watcher". I answer your questions and you then get torque'd off. You make no sense. This assassination was a professionally done job. Those Huge Gates being "wide open" was no accident. If you had read the Officer Mooney WC Testimony, you would know that there was a "civilian" on those Huge Gates. Please familiarize yourself with sworn testimony. It will minimize the egg on your face.
-
Maybe it’s not quite as sloppy as it may appear.
If the conspirator shooter IS using the MC rifle that Oswald had been “given”? (For a period of time and taken photo of) then this shooter did a pretty amazing job of scoring a hit on JFK on his FIRST shot which is at Z223-224.
Then in another 4.8 secs after that he got the 313 head kill shot ( an 8”diameter target moving away at 8mph at about 90 yds.) And he did that with irons sights most likely because the scope was misaligned. Imo, that’s NOT an amateur shooter.
Then just to make sure that at least a couple of witness would see the rifle at the 6th floor SE window sticking out the window, the shooter fired a 3rd shot about 2 secs AFTER 313, which was not really aimed , and hit the curb near Tague.
This conspirator shooter probably got into the TSBD with the MC rifle on the late night Thursday, and hid himself on the 7th floor attic space, He came down to the 6th floor at 12:15pm to the SW 6th floor window where he was seen by Arnold Rowland. He saw BR Williams so retreated and hid himself until NRW had left the floor. The shooter then moved to SE window to get a better shot angle.
Why the conspirator shooter did not just leave the rifle in plain view at the SE window? Maybe he thought that would be too obvious and cause suspicion of a set up of Oswald, otherwise I’m not sure.
How this shooter escaped from 6th floor and past Baker and Truly as they were watching Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom, would be to use the west elevator ( instead of Dougherty).
If Dougherty could have used the west elevator and not be seen by Dorothy Garner, Baker, Truly, or Eddie Piper, then so could the shooter.
What was Oswald carrying in the paper bag that was under his armpit and in the cup of his hand? If they had found curtain rods or a roll of blinds in a paper bag several months later, say in the storage room by the front stairs, would anyone have reported that? Given all the other fake documents , destroyed notes, and rearranging SN etc , it’s doubtful.
If the conspirator shooter IS using the MC rifle that Oswald had been “given”?
I find it very difficult to believe that a professional marksman, contracted to assassinate the most powerful man on the planet would use Oswald's MC to do the job.
I really don't see that happening but that's just my opinion.
then this shooter did a pretty amazing job of scoring a hit on JFK on his FIRST shot which is at Z223-224.
As I've stated, it's my opinion the shooter was aiming for a head shot, ideally the centre of the head.
If that's the case then the first shot (which passed through both JFK and JBC between z222 and z223 IMO) was a miss by a good 8 - 10 inches.
The head shot struck between z312 and z313, some 4.92 (let's call it 5) seconds after the first, non-fatal, shot. It is just a massive stroke of luck that during these 5 seconds nothing happened that could prevent the head shot.
So, IMO, we have a miss then a massive stroke of luck. Not my idea of a professional, military, expert operation.
Then just to make sure that at least a couple of witness would see the rifle at the 6th floor SE window sticking out the window, the shooter fired a 3rd shot about 2 secs AFTER 313, which was not really aimed , and hit the curb near Tague.
I, too, believe the third shot happened after the fatal head shot but I'm totally baffled as to why you would think the third shot was fired to draw attention to the rifle. I really don't get what you're reasoning might be for that. Why would a professional gunman be deliberately trying to give his position away?
The third shot is completely unnecessary and seems to me like it has an element of panic to it. I get the impression it is a wild, hurried shot that misses everything including the limo.
Again, this does not strike me as being particularly professional.
-
[If the sniper used Oswald's Carcano,] then he did a pretty amazing job of scoring a hit on JFK on his FIRST shot which is at Z223-224.
Oswald's FIRST shot wasn't at z223-z224.
His SECOND shot was, though.
-
Oswald's FIRST shot wasn't at z223-z224.
His SECOND shot was, though.
The first of the three clearly audible shots passed through both JFK and JBC between z222 and z223.
The second shot was the head shot, between z312 and z313.
The mountain of evidence supporting this claim can be found at "The First Shot" thread - https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2723.msg98813.html#msg98813
-
The first of the three clearly audible shots passed through both JFK and JBC between z222 and z223.
The second shot was the head shot, between z312 and z313.
Oswald's first (missing everything) shot at hypothetical "Z-124" (i.e., half-a second before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133) was sufficiently steeply-downward-angled as to require him to stand and awkwardly lean forward while firing it.
The muzzle of his Carcano was, therefore, inside the building when he fired said missing-everything shot.
The sound of the muzzle blast it created was therefore different from the sounds of his next two shots (at Z-222 - Z-224 and Z-313), which shots were fired from a kneeling position -- and with the muzzle of his Carcano outside the building.
-
Oswald's first (missing everything) shot at hypothetical "Z-124" (i.e., half-a second before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133) was sufficiently steeply-downward-angled as to require him to stand and awkwardly lean forward while firing it.
The muzzle of his Carcano was, therefore, inside the building, and the sound of the muzzle blast it created was therefore different from the sounds of his next two shots at Z222-Z-224 and Z-313, which shots were fired from a kneeling position -- and with the muzzle of his Carcano outside the building.
I have a mountain of evidence to back up my claim.
The same mountain of evidence completely obliterates the notion of such an early shot.
I would, however, be interested to hear what evidence you have based your belief in such an early shot on.
-
I would be interested to hear what evidence you have based your belief in such an early (i.e., hypothetical "Z-124") shot on.
Perhaps you missed my earlier posts (on different "threads") on the subject.
Are you hoping for a special one-on-one tutorial?
-
Perhaps you missed my earlier posts (on different "threads") on the subject.
Are you hoping for a special one-on-one tutorial?
A one-on-one tutorial?
:D :D
Thanks for the offer but I'll have to decline.
I've covered this issue in great detail in "The First Shot" thread. If you want to get up to speed check it out.
Other than the mountain of evidence ruling out such an early shot I can see at least one big problem with your theory right away.
Having Oswald standing for the first shot should have had alarm bells ringing.
I doubt it's even possible to stand by a half closed window in that small space and hit a target on the road.
The arrangement of the Sniper's Perch would clearly indicate the shooter was preparing for a shot after the limo emerged from behind the oak tree. Why create the Perch then stand? Wouldn't these boxes be in the way while he was standing? I reckon it would be near impossible to get a standing shot on target in these circumstances.
-
[...]
O'meara,
Perhaps you didn't understand what I wrote.
I'll try to rephrase it for you so you can understand.
Oswald was standing and awkwardly leaning forward at the 1/3-open window for his first, sharply-downward-angled, missing-everything shot which sounded different than his other two shots because the muzzle of his Carcano was just inside the building.
Oswald ejected the spent cartridge from his Carcano while he was still standing. That ejected shell didn't bounce off the stack of boxes behind him but flew unhindered all the way down to the stack of boxes to his right.
Oswald knelt and rested his left elbow / forearm on the top box for his next two shots, during which the muzzle of his Carcano was outside the building. When he ejected those two shells from his kneeling position, they bounced off the stack of boxes behind him and ended up under the window.
The different sound of the first shot, the fact that it missed everything, and the ejection pattern of the three spent shells suggest that this is what happened.
A scientific analysis of the conscious reactions of seven witnesses (including JFK, Jackie, and Governor Connally) by Roselle and Scearce in 2020 suggests that the first shot was fired half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133 (after a 17-second pause), and that Oswald, therefore, took 10.2 seconds to fire all three shots in the echo chamber known as Dealey Plaza.
Understand yet?
https://d7922adf-f499-4a26-96d4-8ab2d521fa35.usrfiles.com/ugd/d7922a_e280e26982b44f2c97c6e6e27026e385.pdf
-
O'meara,
Perhaps you didn't understand what I wrote.
I'll try to rephrase it for you so you can understand.
Oswald was standing and awkwardly leaning forward at the 1/3-open window for his first, sharply-downward-angled, missing-everything shot which sounded different than his other two shots because the muzzle of his Carcano was just inside the building.
Oswald ejected the spent cartridge from his Carcano while he was still standing. That ejected shell didn't bounce off the stack of boxes behind him but flew unhindered all the way down to the stack of boxes to his right.
Oswald knelt and rested his left elbow / forearm on the top box for his next two shots, during which the muzzle of his Carcano was outside the building. When he ejected those two shells from his kneeling position, they bounced off the stack of boxes behind him and ended up under the window.
The different sound of the first shot, the fact that it missed everything, and the ejection pattern of the three spent shells suggest that this is what happened.
A scientific analysis of the conscious reactions of seven witnesses (including JFK, Jackie, and Governor Connally) by Roselle and Scearce in 2020 suggests that the first shot was fired half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133 (after a 17-second pause), and that Oswald, therefore, took 10.2 seconds to fire all three shots in the echo chamber known as Dealey Plaza.
Understand yet?
https://d7922adf-f499-4a26-96d4-8ab2d521fa35.usrfiles.com/ugd/d7922a_e280e26982b44f2c97c6e6e27026e385.pdf
Pinko
There's no need to get so aggro just because someone disagrees with you.
You cut off any opportunity for debate or discussion.
Which is understandable as you don't have a clue what you're talking about and would only end up being made an even bigger fool of.
Have a read through "The First Shot" thread and do yourself a favour.
Oswald was standing and awkwardly leaning forward at the 1/3-open window
Hmmm...the window was 1/3 open you say.
I took a couple of close-ups of the sniper's window and put them side-by-side and drew a couple of rough lines to demonstrate how open the window actually was:
(https://i.postimg.cc/rm3L12jP/sniperswindow2.png) (https://postimages.org/)
You'll obviously disagree but it looks more like 1/4 open to me.
I wonder why you tried to make the window seem more open than it actually was...?
It's also worth noting that the bottom of the open window is pretty much in line with the cross strut of the adjacent window.
It's also worth noting that this image is from the part of the Hughes film where the limo is about to pass in front of the TSBD building but the awkwardly stood Oswald is nowhere to be seen.
Keeping in mind that the bottom of the open window is pretty much in line with the cross strut of the adjacent window:
(https://i.postimg.cc/VkrngqzZ/6thfloorstandingshot.png) (https://postimages.org/)
The red line represents the bottom of the open window (this set of windows is an accurate facsimile of the sniper's window and, as such, can be used to illustrate my point).
The guy on the left with his hands behind his back represents Oswald stood by the window.
Is it even possible to get the end of the rifle out of the window?
Is it possible to aim at anything, anywhere outside, let alone in the middle of the street?
It is fairly obvious to anyone with the slightest bit of common sense that no shooter would think for a second of taking a shot stood up. It simply would not happen.
The arrangement of boxes known as the Sniper's Perch make it abundantly clear that the shooter had pre-planned to take a shot from a sitting or crouching position.
The Sniper's Perch also tells us where the shooter had pre-planned to take the shot. This is the view from the Sniper's Nest looking in the direction the boxes were arranged to rest the rifle on:
(https://i.postimg.cc/0Qb0TTvx/View-from-SN-3.png) (https://postimages.org/) (https://postimages.org/)
In the foreground is the oak tree.
The shooter would be waiting for the limo to clear the oak tree before taking the first shot (pretty much where the white car is in the picture). The red circle represents the area where there would have been the least amount of lateral movement of the target - JFK's head.
There is confirmation that this is the general area the shooter had pre-planned as the 'kill zone' from the testimony of Ronald Fischer:
"The man held my attention for 10 or 15 seconds, because he appeared uncomfortable for one, and, secondly, he wasn’t watching-uh-he didn’t look like he was watching for the parade. He looked like he was looking down toward the Trinity River and the triple underpass down at the end-toward the end of Elm Street. And-uh-all the time I watched him, he never moved his head, he neverhe never moved anything. Just was there transflxed.
Seconds before the motorcade entered Dealey Plaza, Fischer was looking at the man in the Sniper's Nest who was staring "transfixed" in the direction of the triple underpass while everyone else was anticipating the arrival of the motorcade. This is surely the shooter 'visualising' the kill zone.
-
Pinko [...]
Pinko?
By spreading KGB*-approved JFKA conspiracy theories, it's you who could be called a "Pinko" here, not me.
*Today's SVR and FSB
Earlier you posted:
"I doubt it's even possible to stand by a half-closed window in that small space and hit a target on the road."
Now you're changing it to 1/4-open.
Okay. Works for me.
Scroll down to page 18 and see how steeply-downward-angled Oswald's first shot was.
https://d7922adf-f499-4a26-96d4-8ab2d521fa35.usrfiles.com/ugd/d7922a_e280e26982b44f2c97c6e6e27026e385.pdf
-
This idea that Oswald was standing up at the window aiming at JFK and then MISSES ENTIRE CAR??
It’s already been demonstrated by Charles homemade mock up of the TSBD 6th floor SN how easy it would be for the shooter to sit on the box beside the pipes and then lean over to rest the rifle on top of the stacked boxes.
I disagree however , that it was an early 1st shot before Z186 caused by accidental squeezing of the trigger or the shooter jolted his arm on the boxes disrupting his aim. Plus, Betzner nor Willis heard a loud rifle shot before Z186.
The timing of Z224 as the FIRST shot makes more sense as it coincides with time required for the shooter leaning over, placing rifle on the stacked box, and taking time to acquire the moving target in the scope reticle or iron sight, waiting for clearance of tree branches in the way and then firing a well aimed 1st shot that hit JFK only slightly below his head in his upper back.
That’s a pretty good 1st shot at Z224 from the SN 72 ft above, aiming downward at a target accelerating to 15 mph , the closer distance requiring a more difficult tracking of the target than at the farther distance at Z313 when that target had slowed down to 8mph and the angle was less steep.
The 2nd shot was Z313 taken by the shooter who took 4.8 seconds to aim his final last 2 shots which were the 2nd shot at Z313 and 3rd shot following afterwards either 2 seconds later if the rifle used was bolt action, or 0.5-1 sec later if the shooter was using a semi auto rifle.
If the rifle was bolt action, then the 3rd shot taken by the shooter about 2.0 secs after Z313 which completely missed the limo and hit curb near Tague , is somewhat of a mystery why the shooter would fire that shot not aiming.
If however, the rifle used by the shooter was a semi auto , there is a plausible reason for the 3rd shot missing due to muzzle rise effect when
firing 2 shots rapidly. So when the shooter takes his final aimed shot it’s actually a 2 shot rapid fire, which increases the probability of hitting the target. In this case , the Z313 shot hit the head and the 3rd shot 0.5 -1 sec later, went slightly higher (due to muzzle rise effect ) to clear the limo windshield and hit the curb near Tague.
The way that Lee Bowers demonstrated his impression of the spacing of the last 2 shots by rapping his hand on the desk, is so quick as rule out a bolt action rifle and more consistent with a 0.5-1.0 sec 3rd shot following Z313 shot, which could only be a semi auto rifle ( presuming only one shooter).
Otherwise, to explain this impression by 2/3rd majority of ear witnesses of the last 2 shots fired almost simultaneously or with only a fraction of a sec between them, would require a 2nd shooter.
The closest ear witness, Harold Norman spaced all the 3 shots fired in less than 4 secs (imo) judging from his “boom click click” sequence which he demonstrated in his recorded interviews.
-
The first of the three clearly audible shots passed through both JFK and JBC between z222 and z223.
The second shot was the head shot, between z312 and z313.
The mountain of evidence supporting this claim can be found at "The First Shot" thread - https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2723.msg98813.html#msg98813
First of 4 shots was around z-160
(https://www.jfk-online.com/JBC-138-173.gif)
(https://www.jfk-online.com/JFK-138-162.gif)
-
First of 4 shots was around z-160
(https://www.jfk-online.com/JBC-138-173.gif)
(https://www.jfk-online.com/JFK-138-162.gif)
'Head turns' are, by far, the most rubbish argument put forward for shots being fired.
It's a motorcade, there are people on either side of the limo looking to catch the attention of the occupants. It's safe to say that all through the entire motorcade the occupants are constantly turning their heads to each other or things happening outside the limo.
I find it amazing that people are still using this method to determine when a shot occurred.
It is a really weak argument.
The clips you posted are an excellent example of how mistaken this watery method is.
At this point in the Z-film both the Connallys and the Kennedys turn their heads to the right.
All of them.
It is well reported that this is in response to Mary Woodward and her friends calling out to catch the attention of the President and his wife. All four occupants turn and look in the direction of Woodward and co.
JFK then smiles and waves in their direction - a curious response if you are trying to argue that he is responding to the sound of a shot.
As is so often the case in "The First Shot" thread, arguments for a shot earlier than z222/z223 often end up being arguments in favour of this timing and this is the case here. Later in the day Woddward writes an article about what she witnessed:
"Four of us from Women’s News, Maggie Brown, Aurelia Alonzo, my roommate Ann Donaldson, and myself had decided to spend our lunch hour by going to see the President...The President was looking straight ahead and we were afraid we would not get to see his face. But we started clapping and cheering and both he and Mrs. Kennedy turned, and smiled and waved, directly at us, it seemed. Jackie was wearing a beautiful pink suit with beret to match. Two of us, who had seen the President last during the final weeks of the 1960 campaign, remarked almost simultaneously how relaxed and robust he looked. As it turned out, we were almost certainly the last faces he noticed in the crowd. After acknowledging our cheers, he faced forward again and suddenly there was a horrible, ear-shattering noise coming from behind us and a little to the right."
In the clip you posted, JFK turns to his right to acknowledge Woodward and her colleagues. He smiles and waves at them and, according to Woodward, he then turns to face forward and it is at this time that the first shot occurs.
Ann Atterberry nee Donaldson (one of Woodward's colleagues stood with her)
(2-17-09 post by Honorfligh...@Aol.com, found on the alt.assassination.JFK newsgroup, in which he/she discusses an encounter with Donaldson circa 1988) (As to whether he/she had ever had personal contact with an eyewitness) "I have spoken with one, Ann Atterberry, about 21 years ago. Ann described for us in still mournful detail that approximately one second or so before she heard the first very loud shot, JFK then Jackie were both looking towards her and she was absolutely thrilled by that. JFK had also started waving towards her (which thrilled Ann even more) and then JFK made direct eye contact with Ann, THEN the first of 3 shots happened, and JFK immediately quickly reacted to being hit.
Quotes from Pat Speer's website.
-
You guys continue relying on the Current Zapruder Film. How about the Zapruder Film that Dan Rather watched and then reported Live to the nation the weekend after the assassination? Per Rather, that Zapruder Film showed Gov Connally being "HIT" in the chest when he was turned around toward JFK/TSBD. The Z Film was privately owned and under lock-n-key for 12 years. As evidence it is worthless.
-
You guys continue relying on the Current Zapruder Film. How about the Zapruder Film that Dan Rather watched and then reported Live to the nation the weekend after the assassination? Per Rather, that Zapruder Film showed Gov Connally being "HIT" in the chest when he was turned around toward JFK/TSBD. The Z Film was privately owned and under lock-n-key for 12 years. As evidence it is worthless.
Read the Zavada Report.
-
Now you're changing it to 1/4-open.
I'm not changing it to anything.
I'm pointing out that it is 1/4 open and not 1/3 open as you posted.
I was also wondering why you would make such an obvious error.
Okay. Works for me.
How does that work for you?
I've presented evidence and arguments demonstrating that:
1] It would be virtually impossible to aim a rifle at a target in the middle of the road through the 1/4 open window from a standing position.
2] That any available evidence indicates the shots were to be taken from a sitting or crouched position.
How does having the window 1/4 open work for you?
Scroll down to page 18 and see how steeply-downward-angled Oswald's first shot was.
https://d7922adf-f499-4a26-96d4-8ab2d521fa35.usrfiles.com/ugd/d7922a_e280e26982b44f2c97c6e6e27026e385.pdf
An utterly meaningless point.
Some pictures taken from a Secret Service re-enactment where the shooter was sitting down, not standing!
You have failed miserably to deal with a single point made in my post and the one piss-weak point you do make also argues against a standing shooter.
Brilliant stuff.
Have a look through "The First Shot" thread.
-
Read the Zavada Report.
Zavada Report was issued in the 90's. Dan Rather viewed the Z Film the very weekend of the JFK Assassination. Case Closed!
-
As previously stated, using 'head turns' to determine whether or not a shot has been taken is really weak.
But there is an exception - if a group of witnesses expressly state that they turned there heads in a specific direction as a result of the first shot.
These are the statements of three of the SS agents travelling in the Presidential follow-up car regarding their actions as a result of the first shot:
Landis - "I heard what sounded like the report of a high-powered rifle from behind me, over my right shoulder...", "My first glance was at the President, as I was practically looking in his direction anyway...", "I immediately returned my gaze, over my right shoulder."
Ready - "I heard what appeared to be fire crackers going off from my position. I immediately turned to my right rear trying to locate the source but was not able to determine the exact location."
Hickey - "I heard what seemed to me that a firecracker exploded to the right and rear. I stood partially up and turned to the rear to see if I could observe anything. "
"over my right shoulder"..."right rear"..."right and rear".
This crop from Altgens 6 (thought to be taken at z255) shows the three men reacting exactly as stated, all looking to the right and rear.
(https://i.postimg.cc/SRxJb0gn/Altgens6crop.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
However, the crop below from z207 shows the same agents all facing forward. There is no sign of any kind of a reaction to a first shot.
(https://i.postimg.cc/nc5MgPBL/z207-2-crop1named.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
This image is taken over four and a half seconds after Tom's shot at the hypothetical z124
It is taken two and a half seconds after Jarrett's shot at z160
The first shot was described as "ear-splitting" and an "explosion".
The three agents would have spun around within a second of hearing it.
Yet z207 shows that no such reaction had taken place.
One must reasonably conclude from this evidence that the first shot did not occur as early z160, let alone earlier.
-
Zavada Report was issued in the 90's. Dan Rather viewed the Z Film the very weekend of the JFK Assassination. Case Closed!
:D :D Case Closed!
Roland Zavada, even in retirement, was considered the world's leading expert on the film used by Zapruder (Kodachrome II).
He was one of the heads of the team that actually developed this film.
He examined the original in forensic detail and produced a truly comprehensive report on it concluding that the Z-film was authentic and unaltered.
You, on the other hand, have a track record of not knowing what you're talking about.
Excuse me if I lean towards Zavada on this issue.
-
The first shot was described as "ear-splitting" and an "explosion."
By everyone who heard it?
The three agents would have spun around within a second of hearing it.
Even if they thought it was just another motorcycle backfire?
One must reasonably conclude from [the] evidence that the first shot did not occur as early z160, let alone earlier.
From “Estimating Occult Timing of Surprise Gunshot Sounds in Silent Film via Observed Start of Human Voluntary Reactions of Concern” by Brian Roselle and Kenneth Scearce in “Journal of the Association of Crime Scene Reconstruction”; 2020
First number = Author A’s observation; Second number = Author B’s observation; Third number = average of the two. Numbers represent Zapruder frames.
Roy Kellerman -- Begins leaning over and looking behind/down to the right at 148, 148, 148
George Hickey -- Begins leaning over to the left looking down in the direction of the rear tire or tire at 144, 143, 143.5
John Connally -- Begins a quick head turn left (followed by quickly looking back right) at 151, 149, 150
Jackie Kennedy -- Starts accelerated head turning left, before looking back right. (Similar to John Connally’s L-R head motion but starts slightly earlier & ends slightly later than his) at 145, 142, 143.5
President Kennedy -- Starts a quick look to the left at 144, 142, 143.5
Nellie Connally -- Begins a quick sweeping head turn to the right at 146, 144, 145
Rosemary Willis -- Begins a quick look away from the Presidential limo back towards the Texas School Book Depository at 141, 139, 140
Rhetorical question: What are the chances that all five passengers (i.e., non-drivers) in an automobile would randomly move their heads within one-third of a second of each other?
-
:D :D Case Closed!
Roland Zavada, even in retirement, was considered the world's leading expert on the film used by Zapruder (Kodachrome II).
He was one of the heads of the team that actually developed this film.
He examined the original in forensic detail and produced a truly comprehensive report on it concluding that the Z-film was authentic and unaltered.
You, on the other hand, have a track record of not knowing what you're talking about.
Excuse me if I lean towards Zavada on this issue.
We are discussing what DAN RATHER reported to the World several times LIVE! This has nothing to do with me. Nice try.
-
We are discussing what DAN RATHER reported to the World several times LIVE! This has nothing to do with me. Nice try.
Get over it, Storing.
Realizing that "nothing was happening" except for some boring motorcycles and a boring lead car, Zapruder paused filming at Z-132 for seventeen seconds in order to conserve precious film.
Not being anxious like you about catching JFK and Jackie on film for every possible nanosecond, he didn't resume filming until the limo was heading towards him on Elm Street.
Dan Rather, not realizing that it would be so important to a fringe minority of JFKA conspiracy theorists like you some sixty years later, used a little "poetic license" and fibbed a little when he said the film showed the limo's actually turning onto Elm.
-
In 1963, people in large population areas received maybe 7 total TV channels. And 3 of those were the Network channels. If a reporter was on a Network National News Broadcast, it was a very Big Deal. Rather knew this. He described what he saw on the Zapruder Film to a nation that at that time, had no idea what the Zapruder Film was. Rather also described seeing an agent in the front seat of the JFK Limo holding a telephone. If Rather was making stuff up, why would he mess around with including inconsequential information such as this? He wouldn't.
-
The Z Film was privately owned and under lock-n-key for 12 years. As evidence it is worthless.
The following week the most important key frames(besides the headshot) were published in LIFE magazine and allowing for production and distribution, the amount of time to alter these frames all of which can be perfectly slotted back into the original, was only a few days, and is simply was not enough time but don't believe me go and ask any older SFX specialist and ask them exactly what could be done with 8mm film or any film for that matter and then ask if your ideas are actually plausible.
Another problem for you is that all the individual elements that you think were edited all have their own specific properties as in lighting, motion blur, directional shadows and angles and etc, and if you cut something out and stick it somewhere else then it's a guarantee that the moved object will be out of place with the surroundings.
(https://i.postimg.cc/SxchkMr0/Life-Magazine-November-29-1963-04.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/q70dRvbN/Life-Magazine-November-29-1963-05.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/tCYr3GZ2/Zap-life.gif)
The following year The Warren Commission published every single frame from Z171 though to Z334 and they are all the Full Frames that included the ghost images between the sprockets, they also included the graphic head shot.
And every frame is exactly what we saw published in Life Magazine a week later and up until what we see today.
(https://i.postimg.cc/bN3Zvgnw/ce-885-zapruder-171-172.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/MpHvfB0b/ce-885-zapruder-313-314.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/tCX1ywYc/ce-885-zapruder-333-334.jpg)
JohnM
-
The following week the most important key frames(besides the headshot) were published in LIFE magazine and allowing for production and distribution, the amount of time to alter these frames all of which can be perfectly slotted back into the original, was only a few days, and is simply was not enough time but don't believe me go and ask any older SFX specialist and ask them exactly what could be done with 8mm film or any film for that matter and then ask if your ideas are actually plausible.
Another problem for you is that all the individual elements that you think were edited all have their own specific properties as in lighting, motion blur, directional shadows and angles and etc, and if you cut something out and stick it somewhere else then it's a guarantee that the moved object will be out of place with the surroundings.
(https://i.postimg.cc/SxchkMr0/Life-Magazine-November-29-1963-04.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/q70dRvbN/Life-Magazine-November-29-1963-05.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/tCYr3GZ2/Zap-life.gif)
The following year The Warren Commission published every single frame from Z171 though to Z334 and they are all the Full Frames that included the ghost images between the sprockets, they also included the graphic head shot.
And every frame is exactly what we saw published in Life Magazine a week later and up until what we see today.
(https://i.postimg.cc/bN3Zvgnw/ce-885-zapruder-171-172.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/MpHvfB0b/ce-885-zapruder-313-314.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/tCX1ywYc/ce-885-zapruder-333-334.jpg)
JohnM
On top of that, all other films and photos relating to the assassination would have to have been similarly altered within the same time-frame, so as to perfectly match any alterations made to the Z-film.
Let's just assume this is impossible.
On top of which Zavada, the "worlds leading expert" on Kodachrome II authenticated the original.
Josiah Thompson wrote a good essay highlighting the abject failure of those arguing for alterations to the Z-film - https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Bedrock_Evidence_in_the_Kennedy_Assassination.html
"One way of looking at this continuing argument is to see it as a gigantic waste of time, as a prime example of junk science from educated people who ought to know better. It may have amusement value in some chronicle of "silly science," but, in terms of knowledge about the Kennedy assassination, it has produced literally nothing."
-
Rather described seeing an agent in the front seat of the JFK limo holding a telephone. If Rather was making stuff up, why would he mess around with including inconsequential information such as this? He wouldn't.
Storing,
Poor Dan Rather was probably shown the Zapruder film only once, because he was only about 60% correct in his description of what's visible in it. He made up the bit about watching the limo actually turn onto Elm Street (in one of the videos I watched, but not in the other), but it's not a big deal that he did so except to fringe JFKA film-alteration conspiracy theorists like you.
He didn't make up the important bit about seeing Kellerman holding the microphone, however. (He mistakenly thought it was a telephone -- maybe it was shaped like one!) In case you didn't know, Kellerman testified to the Warren Commission that he had grabbed it to communicate with Secret Service Lawson in the lead car.
Question: Why did Kellerman start turning his head so far to his right in Z-148?
As a conscious reaction to the sounds of Oswald's first, missing everything shot at hypothetical "Z-124," or to check out the pretty women JFK had just finished waving to?
-
In 1963, people in large population areas received maybe 7 total TV channels. And 3 of those were the Network channels. If a reporter was on a Network National News Broadcast, it was a very Big Deal. Rather knew this. He described what he saw on the Zapruder Film to a nation that at that time, had no idea what the Zapruder Film was. Rather also described seeing an agent in the front seat of the JFK Limo holding a telephone. If Rather was making stuff up, why would he mess around with including inconsequential information such as this? He wouldn't.
The amount of incorrect information being pumped out on TV and in the newspapers in the hours and days after the assassination was amazing.
The emphasis was on getting the story out quickly, before anyone else. So many mistakes were made.
Reports were coming in that a Secret Service agent was killed during the assassination. Someone like you would jump all over this insisting that no responsible reporter/journalist would say such a thing therefore it must have happened and was covered up. But it was just a mistake.
Rather made a mistake. That's all.
The Zavada Report proves the authenticity of the film but you know better. The points John makes about the impossibility of faking the Z-film in the time given are just ignored. As is the point that all other films and photographs would have to be accordingly faked, making the whole thing just a wild fantasy. Mistake after mistake was made by the media in their rush to get the stories out but you just ignore all of this.
-
Is that the same "LIFE Magazine" that printed the Z Frames out-of-order? Made it look like JFK's head was pushed Forward instead of BACKWARD? That Life Magazine? And let's not pretend that anybody Knew with certainty what the 1963 US Gov could do in the area of film CGI. As NPIC Image Expert Dino Brugioni said, "They could do anything" at Top Secret "Hawkeye Works".
-
On top of that, all other films and photos relating to the assassination would have to have been similarly altered within the same time-frame, so as to perfectly match any alterations made to the Z-film.
Let's just assume this is impossible.
On top of which Zavada, the "worlds leading expert" on Kodachrome II authenticated the original.
Josiah Thompson wrote a good essay highlighting the abject failure of those arguing for alterations to the Z-film - https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Bedrock_Evidence_in_the_Kennedy_Assassination.html
"One way of looking at this continuing argument is to see it as a gigantic waste of time, as a prime example of junk science from educated people who ought to know better. It may have amusement value in some chronicle of "silly science," but, in terms of knowledge about the Kennedy assassination, it has produced literally nothing."
With respect to altering other assassination films, specifically what "other films" were shot from the (N) side of Elm St? And "Viva Zavada" was so late to this party that he is Not worth mentioning. Whatever he is looking at that point in time is 30+ years old. And you guys continually want to question the "memories" of eyewitnesses vs your parading around an allegedly 30+ year old piece of film whose "chain of custody" has holes that you could drive a mack truck through? Seriously?
-
Storing,
Poor Dan Rather was probably shown the Zapruder film only once, because he was only about 60% correct in his description of what's visible in it. He made up the bit about watching the limo actually turn onto Elm Street (in one of the videos I watched, but not in the other), but it's not a big deal that he did so except to fringe JFKA film-alteration conspiracy theorists like you.
He didn't make up the important bit about seeing Kellerman holding the microphone, however. (He mistakenly thought it was a telephone -- maybe it was shaped like one!) In case you didn't know, Kellerman testified to the Warren Commission that he had grabbed it to communicate with Secret Service Lawson in the lead car.
Question: Why did Kellerman start turning his head so far to his right in Z-148?
As a conscious reaction to the sounds of Oswald's first, missing everything shot at hypothetical "Z-124," or to check out the pretty women JFK had just finished waving to?
How about we STOP dealing in your world of "probably's"?
-
The amount of incorrect information being pumped out on TV and in the newspapers in the hours and days after the assassination was amazing.
The emphasis was on getting the story out quickly, before anyone else. So many mistakes were made.
Reports were coming in that a Secret Service agent was killed during the assassination. Someone like you would jump all over this insisting that no responsible reporter/journalist would say such a thing therefore it must have happened and was covered up. But it was just a mistake.
Rather made a mistake. That's all.
The Zavada Report proves the authenticity of the film but you know better. The points John makes about the impossibility of faking the Z-film in the time given are just ignored. As is the point that all other films and photographs would have to be accordingly faked, making the whole thing just a wild fantasy. Mistake after mistake was made by the media in their rush to get the stories out but you just ignore all of this.
Yeah, it's a laugh riot watching You Tube and seeing/hearing Walter Cronkite repeatedly claiming that a SS Agent was shot dead. That's 1963 FAKE NEWS at its' highest level. And it continues to this day via CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc.
-
Is that the same "LIFE Magazine" that printed the Z Frames out-of-order? Made it look like JFK's head was pushed Forward instead of BACKWARD? That Life Magazine? And let's not pretend that anybody Knew with certainty what the 1963 US Gov could do in the area of film CGI. As NPIC Image Expert Dino Brugioni said, "They could do anything" at Top Secret "Hawkeye Works".
How much misinformation can you pack into 1 paragraph? You old timer CT's should know better!
1. Life Magazine in the 60's would never post any Zapruder frames showing the headshot or even the immediate following frames.
2. The two frames Z314 and Z315 that were printed out of order were contained within CE885 from the Warren Commission's Volume 18.
3. These two frames are identical to the Zapruder film we have today, therefore the order they were printed is irrelevant.
4. The acronym CGI comes from Computer Generated Imagery and the most powerful computers at the time were woefully inadequate for computer graphics. Decades later photorealistic computer images were still impossible and even today you'd be hard pressed to pass off CGI as real.
5. The state of the art in 1963 and up until the 90's was all done with multiple runs through optical printers which introduced layers of excessive film grain, whereas the Zapruder Film grain is identical to a straight from the camera original.
6. Gee Whiz, Top Secret "Hawkeye Works" could do anything except hide the most significant feature of the Zapruder film, Kennedy's back and to the left? LOL!
JohnM
-
On top of that, all other films and photos relating to the assassination would have to have been similarly altered within the same time-frame, so as to perfectly match any alterations made to the Z-film.
Thumb1:
JohnM
-
How much misinformation can you pack into 1 paragraph? You old timer CT's should know better!
1. Life Magazine in the 60's would never post any Zapruder frames showing the headshot or even the immediate following frames.
2. The two frames Z314 and Z315 that were printed out of order were contained within CE885 from the Warren Commission's Volume 18.
3. These two frames are identical to the Zapruder film we have today, therefore the order they were printed is irrelevant.
4. The acronym CGI comes from Computer Generated Imagery and the most powerful computers at the time were woefully inadequate for computer graphics. Decades later photorealistic computer images were still impossible and even today you'd be hard pressed to pass off CGI as real.
5. The state of the art in 1963 and up until the 90's was all done with multiple runs through optical printers which introduced layers of excessive film grain, whereas the Zapruder Film grain is identical to a straight from the camera original.
6. Gee Whiz, Top Secret "Hawkeye Works" could do anything except hide the most significant feature of the Zapruder film, Kennedy's back and to the left? LOL!
JohnM
Hey John! Good to hear from you.
(1) Where Exactly do you think the images for CE885 came from? "LIFE". Everyone drinking from the same poisoned well gets sick.
(3) 2 Frames do Not qualify as the entire "Film". What makes it "irrelevent" after getting caught pulling a FRAUD on the public? Lifton busted this FRAUD wide open. Nobody stepped forward prior to Lifton blowing the whistle.
(4) + (5) You obviously know little about the film/motion picture industry. The 1st full length Talkie/ "The Jazz Singer" was done in 1927. The original CGI PACKED "King Kong" was done in 1933. Only 6 yrs between dialogue being in a film from start-finish and the Special Effects loaded "King Kong". This is how lightning fast that film technology moved forward. You are treating 1963 film technology, (30 yrs after "King Kong"), like it was "fractured flicker" time. (I reference "CGI" anytime any level of Special Effects are used. CGI is quicker to type and everybody knows immediately what I am talking about).
(6) You seem to have forgotten the Gaping Hole in the Back of JFK's head as seen by SA Clint Hill and the Parkland Hospital Dr's. That HOLE is corroborated by the Blood Stain on the very TOP of the Limo Backrest. JFK's head NEVER came into contact with the TOP of the Backrest. The CGI Team failed to remove that Blood Stain from the TOP of the Backrest. Obviously, there is No such thing as a Perfect Crime. The ever improving detail that Technology is now revealing in the JFK assassination images is making this clear.
-
Thumb1:
JohnM
Why are you posting images showing Main St and Houston St? Or, are You going Max Holland and further extending the elapsed firing time to include Main St and Houston St?
-
How about we STOP dealing in your world of "probably's"?
Why was Rather only about 60% correct in his description of what's in the film? Did the bad guys alter 40% of it?
-
Why was Rather only about 60% correct in his description of what's in the film? Did the bad guys alter 40% of it?
I have never claimed that, "Rather only about 60% Correct in his description of what's in the film". Rather's original broadcasts the weekend of the assassination are available to see/hear on You Tube. Plus, Rather at 93 yrs old is still alive. If those telecasts were not as Rather remembers them, he could have easily set the record straight.
-
I have never claimed that "Rather is only about 60% Correct in his description of what's in the film". Rather's original broadcasts the weekend of the assassination are available to see/hear on You Tube. Plus, Rather at 93 yrs old is still alive. If those telecasts were not as Rather remembers them, he could have easily set the record straight.
You make no sense, Storing.
Of course you didn't say, "Rather is only about 60% correct in his description of what's in the film." I said it, and it's the truth.
I've already watched the broadcasts on YouTube. FWIW, they differ.
You wrote: "If those telecasts were not as Rather remembers them, he could have easily set the record straight."
What are you even talking about?
It's not that those weekend-of-the-assassination telecasts are or are not as Rather remembers them, it's that his depiction in those telecasts of what is in the Zapruder film is only about 60% correct.
D'oh.
-
You make no sense, Storing.
Of course you didn't say, "Rather is only about 60% correct in his description of what's in the film." I said it, and it's the truth.
I've already watched the broadcasts on YouTube. FWIW, they differ.
You wrote: "If those telecasts were not as Rather remembers them, he could have easily set the record straight."
What are you even talking about?
It's not that those weekend-of-the-assassination telecasts are or are not as Rather remembers them, it's that his depiction in those telecasts of what is in the Zapruder film is only about 60% correct.
D'oh.
Your sentence currently under discussion was Not a declarative statement. It ended with a ?
So now you want to inform this Forum what Rather remembers? "Carnac The Magnificent" you ain't.
You are basing your 60% scoring of the Rather 1963 description of the Zapruder Film vs the Current Zapruder Film that we frequently view today. You really do Not know with certainty that Rather viewed the same/identical Z Film that we view today. You're assuming, and we all know what happens when making an assumption.
-
Now you want to inform this Forum what Rather remembers?
Not what he remembers (present tense), Storing, but what he mis-remembered (past tense) timing-wise and sequence-wise, etc, a few hours after viewing it. Whether Rather watched the Zapruder film one time or five times (I'm leaning towards the former), he was able to remember only about 60% of it correctly when he told the nation about it that weekend.
You are basing your 60% scoring of the Rather 1963 description of the Zapruder Film vs the current Zapruder film that we frequently view today.
Do you really think the bad guys altered about 40% of the film?
-
You still have posted absolutely Nothing to base your 60% figure on. If you're just grabbing that number outta thin air, it carries no weight.
-
You still have posted absolutely Nothing to base your 60% figure on. If you're just grabbing that number outta thin air, it carries no weight.
Storing,
I said about 60%.
But you have a good point.
Maybe he was "only" about 20% wrong.
LOL!
-
So what are you saying? About 80% accurate? About 90% accurate? Stay away from the numbers. It's obviously not your forte.
-
So, what are you saying? About 80% accurate? About 90% accurate?
Storing,
Did you pull "90% accurate" out of thin air?
-
Your sentence currently under discussion was Not a declarative statement. It ended with a ?
So now you want to inform this Forum what Rather remembers? "Carnac The Magnificent" you ain't.
You are basing your 60% scoring of the Rather 1963 description of the Zapruder Film vs the Current Zapruder Film that we frequently view today. You really do Not know with certainty that Rather viewed the same/identical Z Film that we view today. You're assuming, and we all know what happens when making an assumption.
Storing,
Here's my hot-off-the-press transcription of Rather's 3-minute-and-27-second broadcast.
It appears as though he mistakenly believed that the limo was only about 35 yards from the base of the TSBD when CE-399 wounded both JFK and JBC (at approximately Z-222) when in fact it was about twice as far away from it.
Ironically, the limo was about 35 yards from the base of the TSBD and JFK was waving when Oswald's first shot was missing him (and everything else) at hypothetical "Z-124," i.e., about half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming (after a 17-second pause) at Z-133.
"The films we saw were taken by an amateur photographer who had a particularly good vantage point, just past the building from which the fatal shot was fired. The films show President Kennedy's open black limousine making a left turn off Houston Street onto Elm Street on the fringe of downtown Dallas, the left turn made just below the window at which the assassin was waiting. About 35 yards past the very base of the building, just below the window, President Kennedy could be seen to put his right hand up to the side of his head to either brush back his hair or perhaps rub his eyebrow. President Kennedy was sitting on the same side of the car as the building from which the shot came. Mrs. Kennedy was by his side. In the jump seat in front of him, Mrs. Connally and Governor Connally -- Governor Connally on the same side of the car as the President -- and in the front seat, two Secret Service men. Just as the President put that right hand up to the side of his head, he … you could see him lurch forward, the first shot had hit him. Mrs. Kennedy was looking in another direction and apparently didn't see or sense that first shot or didn't hear it. But Governor Connally, in the seat in front, appeared to have heard it, or at least sense that something was wrong. The governor's coat was open. He reached back in this fashion, exposing his white shirt front to the assassin’s window, he reached back as if to offer aid or ask the President something. At that moment, a shot clearly hit the Governor in the front and he fell back in the seat. Mrs. Connally immediately threw herself over him in a protective position. In the next instant, with this time Mrs. Kennedy apparently looking on, a second shot -- the third total shot -- hit the President’s head. He … his head could be seen to move violently forward . . . and Mrs. Kennedy stood up immediately. The President leaned over her way, it appeared that he might have brushed her legs. Mrs. Kennedy then literally went on the top of the trunk of the Lincoln car and put practically her whole body on the trunk -- it appeared she might have been on her all fours, there -- reaching out for the Secret Service man, the lone Secret Service man who was riding on the bumper of the car, the back bumper on Mrs. Kennedy's side. The Secret Service man leaned forward and put his hands on Mrs. Kennedy's shoulder to push her back into the car – she was in some danger, it appeared, of rolling off or falling off. And we described this before -- there was some question about what we meant by Mrs. Kennedy’s being on the trunk of the car. Only she knows, but it appeared that she was trying desperately to get the Secret Service man's attention or perhaps to help pull him into the car. The car never stopped; it never paused. In the front seat, a secret serviceman was on the telephone. The car picked up speed and disappeared beneath an underpass."
-
With respect to altering other assassination films, specifically what "other films" were shot from the (N) side of Elm St?
To be honest, Royell, you should really know that there were no "other films" shot from the north side of Elm Street. The only film that captured the moment of the assassination shot from the north side was the Zapruder film. It's quite shocking that you are not aware of such a basic fact.
The point I was making was that there were "other films" that captured the moment of the assassination. I should be surprised that you are not aware of the Nix film or the Muchmore film or the Bronson film. But I'm not surprised. Your ignorance regarding the assassination of JFK is quite profound as you've demonstrated time and time and time again.
And "Viva Zavada" was so late to this party that he is Not worth mentioning. Whatever he is looking at that point in time is 30+ years old.
:D :D :D
Royell has spoken!!
The man regarded by some as the world's leading expert on Kodachrome II "is Not worth mentioning"!
The man who was one of the leading members of the team that invented Kodachrome II "is Not worth mentioning"!
You are so ignorant about the work of Roland Zavada it's funny.
You don't have the first clue.
Do some research for a change. Read the Zavada Report. Do some work.
But before you do that, please point everyone to the Dan Rather interview where he states that the film he saw was different from the Z-film we see today.
Where does Dan Rather explain the difference between his initial report of the Zapruder film and the Zapruder film we see today?
Now, I have to warn you...this is a trick question that you will not be able to answer without making yourself look foolish.
But go for it anyway.
-
Storing,
Here's my hot-off-the-press transcription of Rather's 3-minute-and-27-second broadcast.
It appears as though he mistakenly believed that the limo was only about 35 yards from the base of the TSBD when CE-399 wounded both JFK and JBC (at approximately Z-222) when in fact it was about twice as far away from it.
Ironically, the limo was about 35 yards from the base of the TSBD and JFK was waving when Oswald's first shot was missing him (and everything else) at hypothetical "Z-124," i.e., about half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming (after a 17-second pause) at Z-133.
"The films we saw were taken by an amateur photographer who had a particularly good vantage point, just past the building from which the fatal shot was fired. The films show President Kennedy's open black limousine making a left turn off Houston Street onto Elm Street on the fringe of downtown Dallas, the left turn made just below the window at which the assassin was waiting. About 35 yards past the very base of the building, just below the window, President Kennedy could be seen to put his right hand up to the side of his head to either brush back his hair or perhaps rub his eyebrow. President Kennedy was sitting on the same side of the car as the building from which the shot came. Mrs. Kennedy was by his side. In the jump seat in front of him, Mrs. Connally and Governor Connally -- Governor Connally on the same side of the car as the President -- and in the front seat, two Secret Service men. Just as the President put that right hand up to the side of his head, he … you could see him lurch forward, the first shot had hit him. Mrs. Kennedy was looking in another direction and apparently didn't see or sense that first shot or didn't hear it. But Governor Connally, in the seat in front, appeared to have heard it, or at least sense that something was wrong. The governor's coat was open. He reached back in this fashion, exposing his white shirt front to the assassin’s window, he reached back as if to offer aid or ask the President something. At that moment, a shot clearly hit the Governor in the front and he fell back in the seat. Mrs. Connally immediately threw herself over him in a protective position. In the next instant, with this time Mrs. Kennedy apparently looking on, a second shot -- the third total shot -- hit the President’s head. He … his head could be seen to move violently forward . . . and Mrs. Kennedy stood up immediately. The President leaned over her way, it appeared that he might have brushed her legs. Mrs. Kennedy then literally went on the top of the trunk of the Lincoln car and put practically her whole body on the trunk -- it appeared she might have been on her all fours, there -- reaching out for the Secret Service man, the lone Secret Service man who was riding on the bumper of the car, the back bumper on Mrs. Kennedy's side. The Secret Service man leaned forward and put his hands on Mrs. Kennedy's shoulder to push her back into the car – she was in some danger, it appeared, of rolling off or falling off. And we described this before -- there was some question about what we meant by Mrs. Kennedy’s being on the trunk of the car. Only she knows, but it appeared that she was trying desperately to get the Secret Service man's attention or perhaps to help pull him into the car. The car never stopped; it never paused. In the front seat, a secret serviceman was on the telephone. The car picked up speed and disappeared beneath an underpass."
when CE-399 wounded both JFK and JBC
:D :D
when Oswald's first shot was missing him (and everything else) at hypothetical "Z-124,
:D :D
-
when CE-399 wounded both JFK and JBC
:D :D
when Oswald's first shot was missing him (and everything else) at hypothetical "Z-124,
:D :D
As I said in another thread, there are all kinds of tinfoil-hat JFKA conspiracy theorists.
You're just one example, O'meara.
-
Storing,
Here's my hot-off-the-press transcription of Rather's 3-minute-and-27-second broadcast.
It appears as though he mistakenly believed that the limo was only about 35 yards from the base of the TSBD when CE-399 wounded both JFK and JBC (at approximately Z-222) when in fact it was about twice as far away from it.
Ironically, the limo was about 35 yards from the base of the TSBD and JFK was waving when Oswald's first shot was missing him (and everything else) at hypothetical "Z-124," i.e., about half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming (after a 17-second pause) at Z-133.
"The films we saw were taken by an amateur photographer who had a particularly good vantage point, just past the building from which the fatal shot was fired. The films show President Kennedy's open black limousine making a left turn off Houston Street onto Elm Street on the fringe of downtown Dallas, the left turn made just below the window at which the assassin was waiting. About 35 yards past the very base of the building, just below the window, President Kennedy could be seen to put his right hand up to the side of his head to either brush back his hair or perhaps rub his eyebrow. President Kennedy was sitting on the same side of the car as the building from which the shot came. Mrs. Kennedy was by his side. In the jump seat in front of him, Mrs. Connally and Governor Connally -- Governor Connally on the same side of the car as the President -- and in the front seat, two Secret Service men. Just as the President put that right hand up to the side of his head, he … you could see him lurch forward, the first shot had hit him. Mrs. Kennedy was looking in another direction and apparently didn't see or sense that first shot or didn't hear it. But Governor Connally, in the seat in front, appeared to have heard it, or at least sense that something was wrong. The governor's coat was open. He reached back in this fashion, exposing his white shirt front to the assassin’s window, he reached back as if to offer aid or ask the President something. At that moment, a shot clearly hit the Governor in the front and he fell back in the seat. Mrs. Connally immediately threw herself over him in a protective position. In the next instant, with this time Mrs. Kennedy apparently looking on, a second shot -- the third total shot -- hit the President’s head. He … his head could be seen to move violently forward . . . and Mrs. Kennedy stood up immediately. The President leaned over her way, it appeared that he might have brushed her legs. Mrs. Kennedy then literally went on the top of the trunk of the Lincoln car and put practically her whole body on the trunk -- it appeared she might have been on her all fours, there -- reaching out for the Secret Service man, the lone Secret Service man who was riding on the bumper of the car, the back bumper on Mrs. Kennedy's side. The Secret Service man leaned forward and put his hands on Mrs. Kennedy's shoulder to push her back into the car – she was in some danger, it appeared, of rolling off or falling off. And we described this before -- there was some question about what we meant by Mrs. Kennedy’s being on the trunk of the car. Only she knows, but it appeared that she was trying desperately to get the Secret Service man's attention or perhaps to help pull him into the car. The car never stopped; it never paused. In the front seat, a secret serviceman was on the telephone. The car picked up speed and disappeared beneath an underpass."
Rather described separate shots hitting JFK and Gov Connally. He said Connally was HIT in the CHEST when he was turned around to see JFK. JFK was already clutching his throat at that point in time. 2 Separate Shots being responsible for the wounds of both at that time. That is what Rather described. 70 yards down Elm St is a long way from the TSBD. You need to rethink that about 70 yard estimate of yours. In my opinion, if nothing was in the way, Joe 6 Pack would have no trouble throwing a baseball from the front of the TSBD to the Zapruder Perch. Try estimating distance in that manner. Find a Point of Reference that you can relate to.
-
Rather described separate shots hitting JFK and Gov Connally. He said Connally was HIT in the CHEST when he was turned around to see JFK. JFK was already clutching his throat at that point in time. 2 Separate Shots being responsible for the wounds of both at that time. That is what Rather described. 70 yards down Elm St is a long way from the TSBD. You need to rethink that about 70 yard estimate of yours. In my opinion, if nothing was in the way, Joe 6 Pack would have no trouble throwing a baseball from the front of the TSBD to the Zapruder Perch. Try estimating distance in that manner. Find a Point of Reference that you can relate to.
Do you agree with Rather that JFK was struck by a bullet when he was about 35 yards from the base of the TSBD and his right hand was brushing his hair back or scratching his eyebrow?
-
To be honest, Royell, you should really know that there were no "other films" shot from the north side of Elm Street. The only film that captured the moment of the assassination shot from the north side was the Zapruder film. It's quite shocking that you are not aware of such a basic fact.
The point I was making was that there were "other films" that captured the moment of the assassination. I should be surprised that you are not aware of the Nix film or the Muchmore film or the Bronson film. But I'm not surprised. Your ignorance regarding the assassination of JFK is quite profound as you've demonstrated time and time and time again.
:D :D :D
Royell has spoken!!
The man regarded by some as the world's leading expert on Kodachrome II "is Not worth mentioning"!
The man who was one of the leading members of the team that invented Kodachrome II "is Not worth mentioning"!
You are so ignorant about the work of Roland Zavada it's funny.
You don't have the first clue.
Do some research for a change. Read the Zavada Report. Do some work.
But before you do that, please point everyone to the Dan Rather interview where he states that the film he saw was different from the Z-film we see today.
Where does Dan Rather explain the difference between his initial report of the Zapruder film and the Zapruder film we see today?
Now, I have to warn you...this is a trick question that you will not be able to answer without making yourself look foolish.
But go for it anyway.
You need to find a sense of humor. With respect to Zavada, he's a "Homer". A "Ringer". He + KODAK.
-
[...]
Storing,
Do you agree with Rather that JFK was struck by a bullet when he was about 35 yards from the base of the TSBD and his right hand was brushing his hair back or scratching his eyebrow?
-
You need to find a sense of humor. With respect to Zavada, he's a "Homer". A "Ringer". He + KODAK.
Now you're just lying, Royell.
The last resort of the ignorant.
You know nothing about him or his work so you just start lying. It's shameful, really.
Oh, you've forgotten to point us to the Dan Rather interview where he describes the film he saw as being different from the Z-film we see today. Where does Rather state this? And no lying, please.
-
Now you're just lying, Royell.
The last resort of the ignorant.
You know nothing about him or his work so you just start lying. It's shameful, really.
Oh, you've forgotten to point us to the Dan Rather interview where he describes the film he saw as being different from the Z-film we see today. Where does Rather state this? And no lying, please.
You do know that "Viva Zavada" worked for KODAK? Retired while working for KODAK? And please refrain from the "Lying" and "Ignorant" slanders. That does nothing to further this discussion.
-
A professional would have used a suppressed rifle and shot JFK when he was a totally exposed stationary target, like standing up on a podium making a speech.
So a professional shooter choosing to shoot at a moving target from high up window of a building ( making it more difficult due to accelerating vehicle and ever changing vertical plane angle ) would seem to be a sloppy method chosen by the shooter.
That MC rifle found on the 6th floor TSBD at 1:20pm is the biggest problem for a CT because if the rifle was not actually fired, then it was either pre planted by conspirator shooter or it was post planted by conspirator member of Fritz team or by FBI.
If the conspirator shooter intent was to set up Oswald, then using the MC rifle which had paper trail to Oswald, would be the more convincing option than the shooter just pre planting the MC rifle and the shooter using some other rifle , risking leaving different type shells behind and different type bullets that might be recovered from JFK and JC.
The desire of the conspirator shooter to set up Oswald, therefore, is the reason why an otherwise professional shooter would choose a sloppier method of A: using a poor quality MC rifle with misaligned scope( or at least preplanting it) and B: choosing to shoot from the TSBD 6th floor 72 ft up and having to adjust lead for changing vertical angle and an accelerating limo moving away at ground level, as well as having to contend with traffic light and tree branches in the way.
-
A professional would have used a suppressed rifle and shot JFK when he was a totally exposed stationary target, like standing up on a podium making a speech.
Exactly Zeon, it's like the guy who took a shot at Trump, the sniper chose a time when Trump was standing relatively still on a podium giving a speech.
(https://www.arabnews.pk/sites/default/files/styles/n_670_395/public/2024/07/14/4465991-205431770.jpg?itok=adbDQVWM)
(https://jfk.blogs.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2020/07/JFKWHP-ST-C12-3-62.jpg)
(https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/jfk_rice_speech_17_s62-05616.jpg)
The main reason Oswald took the chance to assassinate Kennedy while Kennedy was in a moving vehicle was because it was his only opportunity, sure Oswald could have taken a risk at Love Field but where would Oswald have positioned himself? And as for indoor at the most probably unfamiliar Trade Mart that was also filled with uncertainty. And it's common knowledge at this point that supposed unbiased experienced sniper's have collectively said that shooting a moving target would be very difficult. And knowing the difficulty, those oh so wise conspirators set up a lone Patsy with additional snipers firing from multiple directions, even in front! You can't make this up. LOL!
(https://i.postimg.cc/rp15f36R/dallas-trade-mart-november-22-1963-and-now-v0-42hsm4u87rlb1.jpg)
JohnM
-
You do know that "Viva Zavada" worked for KODAK? Retired while working for KODAK? And please refrain from the "Lying" and "Ignorant" slanders. That does nothing to further this discussion.
You do know that "Viva Zavada" worked for KODAK? Retired while working for KODAK?
Of course he worked for Kodak!!
Where do you think the "world's leading expert" on Kodachrome II is going to work?
The Post Office?
What a ridiculous point to make.
As you know absolutely nothing about Roland Zavada and his work, I'll get you started with his biography:
Mr. Zavada retired, as a Standards Director for Imaging Technologies, from Eastman Kodak in March 1990. His past responsibilities included coordinating the activities of the Consumer Video and Broadcast Telecine Television Evaluation Laboratories, a product engineer on reversal motion picture films, and as a principal member of the teams that introduced Kodachrome II, Ektachrome Commercial and Kodachrome int Film and that developed the Super 8 system.
He has a BS from Purdue University, a degree in Photo Science from the Rochester Institute of Technology, and a MBA from the University of Rochester.
He began his standards activity with the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) in 1962. In 1966, he assumed responsibility for the National and International Standardization of the Super 8 system, becoming chair of the SMPTE's 16mm and 8mm Technology Committee, chair of the Super 8 Technology Committee of the ISO TC-36, and subsequently became chairman of several national and international committees including leader of the United States delegation to ISO-TC36 - Cinematography. Work with the Society culminated with four terms as the Society's Engineering Vice President, 1976-1983.
Mr. Zavada received recognition for his technical contributions by receiving Fellowships from the SMPTE, the British Kinematographic Sound and Television Society, the Audio Engineering Society, and the Rochester Engineering Society.
In 1985, Mr. Zavada received the SMPTE Progress Medal for Technical Achievement and was awarded the Leo East Award as Rochester's 1985 Engineer of the Year. In 1986, he received the SMPTE Agfa Gevaert Gold Medal for outstanding Achievement in film and video imaging interface.
In 1994, Mr. Zavada was elected as a Life member of the Foundation of Motion Picture Pioneers Inc.
In 1995, The Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers conferred its highest award and greatest distinction of Honorary Membership to Mr. Zavada.
"...a principal member of the teams that introduced Kodachrome II, Ektachrome Commercial and Kodachrome int Film and that developed the Super 8 system." Who better to examine the most famous Kodachrome II film ever taken?
And please refrain from the "Lying" and "Ignorant" slanders
When you invent falsehoods what shall we call it if not Lying?
Out of thin air you accuse Zavada of being a "ringer". This is something you've made up because you're losing the argument.
What shall we call that?
As you don't like the word Lying, shall we call it Untruthing?
'When Royell claims Roland Zavada is a ringer he is untruthing'.
Do you prefer that?
And when someone doesn't have the first clue about a particular subject don't we say they are Ignorant regarding that subject?
You know zero about the work of Zavada, doesn't that make you Ignorant about it?
If you don't like that word why don't we say you are displaying your Know-Nothingness about Zavada's work.
And slander?
When you accuse Zavada of being a Ringer you are questioning his honesty and integrity, based on nothing more than your Untruthing and Know-Nothingness - isn't that slander?
How come you get to slander someone for no reason other than you can't hold your argument together, yet start crying when you feel the same thing is being done to you?
That does nothing to further this discussion.
Neither does your constant untruthing and know-nothingness.
And you've yet to explain why Dan Rather has never said he saw a different version of the Z-film than the one we see today.
Why has he never done that, Royell?
Is he a Ringer too?
-
Yawn! His long term connection to KODAK makes him a "Ringer", A "Homer". Viva Zavada investigating the Zapruder Film is like the FBI and their investigation of Hillary Clinton. Total Shams!
-
Viva Zavada's investigating the Zapruder Film is like the FBI and their investigation of Hillary Clinton. Total Shams!
Ironically, the guy who investigated Hillary and inadvertently handed the election to Trump by reopening the emails case against her for no good reason eight days before the election because he wanted to "protect the reputation" of the FBI and thought she was going to win, anyway, James Comey, is a true Republican, unlike zombified-by-KGB-disinfo MAGAT "Republicans" like you, Storing.
Or are you a Libertarian "Independent"?
-
You need to define "True Republican". Just because someone is a Registered Republican does Not automatically make them a "True Republican".
-
You need to define "True Republican". Just because someone is a Registered Republican does Not automatically make them a "True Republican".
Weren't you pleasantly surprised that the guy who "kinda investigated" Hillary threw the 2016 election to The Traitorous Orange Bird (rhymes with Xxxx) by reopening a frivolous case against her eight days before the assassination?
-
That election was Over the night that Hillary called Trump supporters "Deplorables". Homey Comey had nothing to do with the outcome of that election.
-
That election was Over the night that Hillary called Trump supporters "Deplorables". Homey Comey had nothing to do with the outcome of that election.
Can you think of a better word for supporters of The Traitorous Orange Bird (rhymes with Xxxx) who made fun of a handicapped journalist in 2016?
-
A professional would have used a suppressed rifle and shot JFK when he was a totally exposed stationary target, like standing up on a podium making a speech.
So a professional shooter choosing to shoot at a moving target from high up window of a building ( making it more difficult due to accelerating vehicle and ever changing vertical plane angle ) would seem to be a sloppy method chosen by the shooter.
That MC rifle found on the 6th floor TSBD at 1:20pm is the biggest problem for a CT because if the rifle was not actually fired, then it was either pre planted by conspirator shooter or it was post planted by conspirator member of Fritz team or by FBI.
If the conspirator shooter intent was to set up Oswald, then using the MC rifle which had paper trail to Oswald, would be the more convincing option than the shooter just pre planting the MC rifle and the shooter using some other rifle , risking leaving different type shells behind and different type bullets that might be recovered from JFK and JC.
The desire of the conspirator shooter to set up Oswald, therefore, is the reason why an otherwise professional shooter would choose a sloppier method of A: using a poor quality MC rifle with misaligned scope( or at least preplanting it) and B: choosing to shoot from the TSBD 6th floor 72 ft up and having to adjust lead for changing vertical angle and an accelerating limo moving away at ground level, as well as having to contend with traffic light and tree branches in the way.
A professional would have used a suppressed rifle and shot JFK when he was a totally exposed stationary target, like standing up on a podium making a speech.
Agreed.
There's no way a professional would have chosen to take a shot from the TSBD building at a moving target.
Again, imagine the planning stage - he's assuming he would have access to the building, that no-one would recognise a complete stranger in the building, that the 6th floor would be empty, that he could simply walk out of the building etc.
And wasn't it lucky for him someone had constructed the Sniper's Nest before he arrived!!
If any intelligence/military element were involved they would surely have had countless opportunities to get close to JFK.
The shots from the TSBD building seem like a desperate option.
Like John said, the shot shots were taken from here because there was no other option. It was the only available opportunity.
The shooter was clearly familiar with rifles but not a professional marksman.
The need for three shots indicates this but the fact one shot missed everything all but proves it.
Thinking about the first shot - the target would surely be the centre of JFK's head. The first shot is low by some 8 to 10 inches. Even though it hits JFK it's still a miss. The shooter then makes an adjustment and the second shot hits the target. This might be because the scope on the MC was off.
The first shot is the easier shot. The 'cross-hairs' are lined up on the centre of the head but the shot is low by 8 to 10 inches. The shooter sees this and makes the adjustment while tracking JFK's head for around 5 seconds.
-
The assassination was neither sloppy or amateurish - but slick and professional. It didn't matter where the bullets from Oswald gun ended up as long as they were recoverable -to implicate him. The professional gunman behind the picket fence did his job but needed a distraction from the shooter in the TSBD to be able to escape. The shooter (not Oswald) in the TSBD was wearing a white (look at me!) top -which is certainly not in the the sniper's handbook - he wanted to be seen!!
-
Despite whatever Holland and his railroad crew might have mistaken for "smoke", I am inclined to Not believe a shooter would confine himself inside of a parking lot that was Jammed with cars. The avenues of escape are extremely limited and any movement among those stationary/parked cars would stand out like a sore thumb. I am inclined to believe that a shooter was on the OUTSIDE of the picket fence in the general area of Badge Man. There was/still is a large tree hugging the picket fence there. That tree is between the picket fence and The Steps/Concrete Walkway leading into the Pergola Shelter. There is walking space between that large tree and the picket fence. A shooter could easily be positioned between the picket fence and that tree. All of that area is also buried in very dark shadow. This area provides a shooter several avenues of exit. A shooter OUTSIDE of the picket fence in the general area of Badge Man needs to be considered. Same goes for Black Dog Man. Maybe the Black Dog Man is actually standing very close to the OUTSIDE of the Picket Fence on Willis 5.
-
The assassination was neither sloppy or amateurish - but slick and professional. It didn't matter where the bullets from Oswald gun ended up as long as they were recoverable -to implicate him. The professional gunman behind the picket fence did his job but needed a distraction from the shooter in the TSBD to be able to escape. The shooter (not Oswald) in the TSBD was wearing a white (look at me!) top - which is certainly not in the sniper's handbook - he wanted to be seen!!
How many bad guys do you figure were involved, altogether, in the planning, the patsying, the shooting, the getting-away, and the all-important (and ongoing!!!) cover up?
Just a few, or oodles and gobs?
-
just one American citizen
-
The assassination was neither sloppy or amateurish - but slick and professional. It didn't matter where the bullets from Oswald gun ended up as long as they were recoverable -to implicate him. The professional gunman behind the picket fence did his job but needed a distraction from the shooter in the TSBD to be able to escape. The shooter (not Oswald) in the TSBD was wearing a white (look at me!) top -which is certainly not in the the sniper's handbook - he wanted to be seen!!
"The assassination was neither sloppy or amateurish - but slick and professional."
Okay, a strong opening statement - the assassination was "slick and professional".
Detailed arguments and supporting evidence have been put forward in this thread demonstrating that the assassination was sloppy and amateurish. It's a pity Dr Alan doesn't deal with a single point but not to worry, I'm sure his arguments supporting his belief that it was a professional job will shine through.
"It didn't matter where the bullets from Oswald gun ended up as long as they were recoverable -to implicate him."
Errrm...does anyone know what this means?
It didn't matter where the bullets ended up?
What?
Surely it was the rifle that was used to implicate Oswald.
And the fact he left the TSBD building.
Maybe Dr Alan can expand on this statement because it's hard to understand
A] What it means.
B] How it supports his claim that the assassination was professional.
"The professional gunman behind the picket fence did his job but needed a distraction from the shooter in the TSBD to be able to escape."
As has already been dealt with earlier in the thread, there was no shooter behind the picket fence, so let's not bother with that.
I'm more interested in this "distraction". Surely the shooter in the TSBD building was trying to assassinate JFK, not trying to cause a distraction.
"The shooter (not Oswald) in the TSBD was wearing a white (look at me!) top -which is certainly not in the the sniper's handbook - he wanted to be seen!!"
Hmmmm...the shooter in the TSBD building wanted to be seen?
I'd really like to hear the logic supporting this statement.
How does this help the shooter in the TSBD building escape?
How is this "slick"?
Doesn't the fact that the shooter in the TSBD building was wearing a white shirt demonstrate that it wasn't a professional hit?
-
Just one American citizen
Really?
You mean evil, evil, evil James JESUS Angleton did the shooting, too?
-
"The assassination was neither sloppy or amateurish - but slick and professional."
Okay, a strong opening statement - the assassination was "slick and professional".
Detailed arguments and supporting evidence have been put forward in this thread demonstrating that the assassination was sloppy and amateurish. It's a pity Dr Alan doesn't deal with a single point but not to worry, I'm sure his arguments supporting his belief that it was a professional job will shine through.
"It didn't matter where the bullets from Oswald gun ended up as long as they were recoverable -to implicate him."
Errrm...does anyone know what this means?
It didn't matter where the bullets ended up?
What?
Surely it was the rifle that was used to implicate Oswald.
And the fact he left the TSBD building.
Maybe Dr Alan can expand on this statement because it's hard to understand
A] What it means.
B] How it supports his claim that the assassination was professional.
"The professional gunman behind the picket fence did his job but needed a distraction from the shooter in the TSBD to be able to escape."
As has already been dealt with earlier in the thread, there was no shooter behind the picket fence, so let's not bother with that.
I'm more interested in this "distraction". Surely the shooter in the TSBD building was trying to assassinate JFK, not trying to cause a distraction.
"The shooter (not Oswald) in the TSBD was wearing a white (look at me!) top -which is certainly not in the the sniper's handbook - he wanted to be seen!!"
Hmmmm...the shooter in the TSBD building wanted to be seen?
I'd really like to hear the logic supporting this statement.
How does this help the shooter in the TSBD building escape?
How is this "slick"?
Doesn't the fact that the shooter in the TSBD building was wearing a white shirt demonstrate that it wasn't a professional hit?
Since when was it established that Oswald wore a White Shirt to work on 11/22/63? If some of you are going to accept this White Shirt Shooter stuff, then you also have to buy into the sniper's nest shooter NOT being Oswald.
-
Since when was it established that Oswald wore a White Shirt to work on 11/22/63? If some of you are going to accept this White Shirt Shooter stuff, then you also have to buy into the sniper's nest shooter NOT being Oswald.
Storing,
Weren't T-shirts usually white in 1963?
-
Since when was it established that Oswald wore a White Shirt to work on 11/22/63? If some of you are going to accept this White Shirt Shooter stuff, then you also have to buy into the sniper's nest shooter NOT being Oswald.
Apparently, his is the buttoned-down shirt Oswald wore to work over his white t-shirt:
(https://i.postimg.cc/NMxmXM0P/Oswaldshirt1.png) (https://postimages.org/)
However, multiple witnesses described the man on the 6th floor wearing a collared shirt, open at the neck, that was either white or so lightly coloured it appeared white:
"He had on a light shirt, a very light-colored shirt, white or a light blue or a color such as that. This was open at the collar. I think it was unbuttoned about halfway and then he had a regular t-shirt...under this..." Arnold Rowland
"And he had-he had on an open-neck shirt...It was light in color: probably white, I couldn’t tell whether it had long sleeves or whether it was a short-sleeved shirt, but it was open-neck and light in color." Ronald Fischer
"Light colored shirt, short sleeve and open neck" Robert Edwards
"I mean other than light color - not a real white shirt, in other words. If it was a white shirt, it was on the dingy side" Howard Brennan
Oswald was not wearing such a shirt on the day of the assassination and didn't have such a shirt in his possession when he was arrested.
This is strong evidence that the shooter was not Oswald.
All credible evidence regarding who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald.
-
just one American citizen
What??
You talk about a shooter in the TSBD building AND a shooter on the GK.
Are you saying this was the same person?
You seem to be a bit all over the place Dr Alan.
Have a long hard think about what you actually think.
-
Apparently, his is the buttoned-down shirt Oswald wore to work over his white t-shirt:
(https://i.postimg.cc/NMxmXM0P/Oswaldshirt1.png) (https://postimages.org/)
However, multiple witnesses described the man on the 6th floor wearing a collared shirt, open at the neck, that was either white or so lightly coloured it appeared white:
"He had on a light shirt, a very light-colored shirt, white or a light blue or a color such as that. This was open at the collar. I think it was unbuttoned about halfway and then he had a regular t-shirt...under this..." Arnold Rowland
"And he had-he had on an open-neck shirt...It was light in color: probably white, I couldn’t tell whether it had long sleeves or whether it was a short-sleeved shirt, but it was open-neck and light in color." Ronald Fischer
"Light colored shirt, short sleeve and open neck" Robert Edwards
"I mean other than light color - not a real white shirt, in other words. If it was a white shirt, it was on the dingy side" Howard Brennan
Oswald was not wearing such a shirt on the day of the assassination and didn't have such a shirt in his possession when he was arrested.
This is strong evidence that the shooter was not Oswald.
All credible evidence regarding who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald.
Open neck shirt does not translate directly to a collared shirt. It can just as easily describe a t-shirt. What I believe these witnesses are saying is that it was open to the neck (versus a buttoned up collar, with normally a tie worn also). In 1963, shirt and ties (often with coats) were more commonly worn than they are these days. Especially among office workers, sales people, etc. Therefore I believe most of these witnesses are most likely describing his t-shirt.
-
Open neck shirt does not translate directly to a collared shirt. It can just as easily describe a t-shirt. What I believe these witnesses are saying is that it was open to the neck (versus a buttoned up collar, with normally a tie worn also). In 1963, shirt and ties (often with coats) were more commonly worn than they are these days. Especially among office workers, sales people, etc. Therefore I believe most of these witnesses are most likely describing his t-shirt.
Rowland specifically describes it as being open at the collar with a t-shirt underneath so I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
And the garment is consistently described as a 'shirt' as opposed to a 't-shirt' by all four witnesses so we'll have to disagree on that too as I believe people know the difference between the two.
Also, Oswald's t-shirt was brilliant white whereas the open necked shirt worn by the shooter was consistently described as not quite white, more like a really light colour rather than pure white.
I find your interpretation really strained and based on your well-founded conviction that Oswald was the shooter therefore the witnesses
must be describing his t-shirt because the shooter was Oswald and he was wearing a white t-shirt therefore they must be describing Oswald's white t-shirt because Oswald was the shooter and he was wearing...etc.
A fair interpretation, the face value interpretation, is that the man on the 6th floor was wearing a very light coloured shirt open at the collar.
From this interpretation, and the knowledge that Oswald wasn't wearing such clothing, one has to conclude that this evidence points away from Oswald being the shooter.
As I say, all credible evidence regarding who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald. This is just one example.
-
Rowland specifically describes it as being open at the collar with a t-shirt underneath so I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
And the garment is consistently described as a 'shirt' as opposed to a 't-shirt' by all four witnesses so we'll have to disagree on that too as I believe people know the difference between the two.
Also, Oswald's t-shirt was brilliant white whereas the open necked shirt worn by the shooter was consistently described as not quite white, more like a really light colour rather than pure white.
I find your interpretation really strained and based on your well-founded conviction that Oswald was the shooter therefore the witnesses
must be describing his t-shirt because the shooter was Oswald and he was wearing a white t-shirt therefore they must be describing Oswald's white t-shirt because Oswald was the shooter and he was wearing...etc.
A fair interpretation, the face value interpretation, is that the man on the 6th floor was wearing a very light coloured shirt open at the collar.
From this interpretation, and the knowledge that Oswald wasn't wearing such clothing, one has to conclude that this evidence points away from Oswald being the shooter.
As I say, all credible evidence regarding who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald. This is just one example.
Rowland specifically describes it as being open at the collar with a t-shirt underneath so I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
You are entitled to whatever opinion you want. However, Rowland (the only one of the witnesses you cite, who gave that description) said he saw this person on the west end of the building about 15-minutes before the shooting. I think it is entirely reasonable that the assassin could have still been wearing his shirt over the t-shirt at that point in time, shedding the outer shirt later, only after he got hot due to sitting in the sun shining in through the sniper’s nest window. If I remember correctly, Rowland gave that description months after the assassination (as he was embellishing some other aspects of what he said he saw). Jackie Kennedy described the sun as being very hot (and she was in a moving convertible with the resulting wind helping to cool her off).
And the garment is consistently described as a 'shirt' as opposed to a 't-shirt' by all four witnesses so we'll have to disagree on that too as I believe people know the difference between the two.
Semantics are not going to change the fact that a t-shirt actually is an open neck shirt (versus a buttoned up collar on a collared shirt).
Also, Oswald's t-shirt was brilliant white whereas the open necked shirt worn by the shooter was consistently described as not quite white, more like a really light colour rather than pure white.
No LHO’s shirt was a dingy white. There are numerous photos that confirm this fact.
I find your interpretation really strained and based on your well-founded conviction that Oswald was the shooter therefore the witnesses
must be describing his t-shirt because the shooter was Oswald and he was wearing a white t-shirt therefore they must be describing Oswald's white t-shirt because Oswald was the shooter and he was wearing...etc.
The circumstantial evidence suggests that LHO was in the sniper’s nest at the time of the assassination. This includes fingerprints, numerous witness descriptions of the shooter, no alibi, LHO’s rifle and ammo, LHO last reported seen on the sixth floor, no one saw LHO elsewhere, no strangers reported seen in the TSBD any any of the people who worked there (even after each one being asked that specific questions by the FBI) etc, etc.
If there is any credible evidence of someone else in the sniper’s nest at the time of the assassination, I am unaware of it.
A fair interpretation, the face value interpretation, is that the man on the 6th floor was wearing a very light coloured shirt open at the collar.
From this interpretation, and the knowledge that Oswald wasn't wearing such clothing, one has to conclude that this evidence points away from Oswald being the shooter.
As I say, all credible evidence regarding who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald. This is just one example.
[/quote]
Sorry, but I believe strongly that an unbiased jury would have to conclude otherwise.
-
Rowland specifically describes it as being open at the collar with a t-shirt underneath so I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
You are entitled to whatever opinion you want. However, Rowland (the only one of the witnesses you cite, who gave that description) said he saw this person on the west end of the building about 15-minutes before the shooting. I think it is entirely reasonable that the assassin could have still been wearing his shirt over the t-shirt at that point in time, shedding the outer shirt later, only after he got hot due to sitting in the sun shining in through the sniper’s nest window. If I remember correctly, Rowland gave that description months after the assassination (as he was embellishing some other aspects of what he said he saw). Jackie Kennedy described the sun as being very hot (and she was in a moving convertible with the resulting wind helping to cool her off).
"You are entitled to whatever opinion you want."
As are you Charles.
You accept Rowland's observation of a man with with a scoped rifle on the 6th floor and that the man had a shirt on over a t-shirt, but you don't accept the colour of the shirt he gives - "a very light-colored shirt, white or a light blue"
The opinion I have allows me to take witness statements at face value rather than assume 'what they really meant to say'.
And the garment is consistently described as a 'shirt' as opposed to a 't-shirt' by all four witnesses so we'll have to disagree on that too as I believe people know the difference between the two.
Semantics are not going to change the fact that a t-shirt actually is an open neck shirt (versus a buttoned up collar on a collared shirt).
It's not about semantics.
Different garments have different names - trousers are called trousers, jackets are called jackets etc.
Different types of shirt have different names.
You, yourself have demonstrated this in your last few posts:
"In 1963, shirt and ties (often with coats) were more commonly worn than they are these days. Especially among office workers, sales people, etc. Therefore I believe most of these witnesses are most likely describing his t-shirt."
Here you specifically delineate the difference between a shirt and Oswald's t-shirt.
A white t-shirt is an iconic garment and instantly recognisable (think James Dean). Everyone knows what a t-shirt is and when trying to give an accurate description it would be stated as such.
There can be absolutely no doubt that these witnesses are not describing a t-shirt.
They are doing what you have naturally done - recognised the difference between a shirt and a t-shirt.
Also, Oswald's t-shirt was brilliant white whereas the open necked shirt worn by the shooter was consistently described as not quite white, more like a really light colour rather than pure white.
No LHO’s shirt was a dingy white. There are numerous photos that confirm this fact.
Really?
(https://i.postimg.cc/Yq0gw9yt/Oswaldmugshot.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Feel free to post your own copy of his mugshot and see if yours is any less brilliant white.
I find your interpretation really strained and based on your well-founded conviction that Oswald was the shooter therefore the witnesses
must be describing his t-shirt because the shooter was Oswald and he was wearing a white t-shirt therefore they must be describing Oswald's white t-shirt because Oswald was the shooter and he was wearing...etc.
The circumstantial evidence suggests that LHO was in the sniper’s nest at the time of the assassination. This includes fingerprints, numerous witness descriptions of the shooter, no alibi, LHO’s rifle and ammo, LHO last reported seen on the sixth floor, no one saw LHO elsewhere, no strangers reported seen in the TSBD any any of the people who worked there (even after each one being asked that specific questions by the FBI) etc, etc.
If there is any credible evidence of someone else in the sniper’s nest at the time of the assassination, I am unaware of it.
"The circumstantial evidence suggests that LHO was in the sniper’s nest at the time of the assassination."
This is completely wrong.
Every single piece of credible circumstantial evidence available regarding who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald.
We are in the midst of a discussion wherein four eye-witnesses are describing clothing Oswald wasn't wearing and didn't own. This is really strong circumstantial evidence that the shooter was not Oswald. Just because you are trying to wish it away is meaningless.
"The circumstantial evidence suggests that LHO was in the sniper’s nest at the time of the assassination. This includes fingerprints, numerous witness descriptions of the shooter, no alibi, LHO’s rifle and ammo, LHO last reported seen on the sixth floor, no one saw LHO elsewhere, no strangers reported seen in the TSBD any any of the people who worked there (even after each one being asked that specific questions by the FBI) etc, etc."
There is so much wrong in this paragraph I refuse to get involved. All that needs to be said is that there not a single point you've made here that puts Oswald in the SN at the time of the assassination. Not one. Not even close.
That you think you have provided evidence placing him there at the time of the shooting is your issue, not mine.
It smacks of the LNers belief that it is a proven fact Oswald took the shots, when it is just another theory.
"If there is any credible evidence of someone else in the sniper’s nest at the time of the assassination, I am unaware of it."
Just as you are unaware of any credible evidence placing Oswald in the SN at the time of the assassination.
A fair interpretation, the face value interpretation, is that the man on the 6th floor was wearing a very light coloured shirt open at the collar.
From this interpretation, and the knowledge that Oswald wasn't wearing such clothing, one has to conclude that this evidence points away from Oswald being the shooter.
As I say, all credible evidence regarding who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald. This is just one example.
Sorry, but I believe strongly that an unbiased jury would have to conclude otherwise.
But that's a biased opinion.
-
Since when was it established that Oswald wore a White Shirt to work on 11/22/63? If some of you are going to accept this White Shirt Shooter stuff, then you also have to buy into the sniper's nest shooter NOT being Oswald.
It was a slick and professional job because the President was killed, Oswald was implicated, and the perpetrators escaped…job done!
It means…..as long as the bullets could be recovered -whether that was in somebody in the car – or the car itself, or even recovered from Dealey Plaza, they would be traced back to the gun deliberately left on the sixth floor, thus implicating Oswald. Just because something is ‘dealt with in the thread’ does not mean it is a fact! There is a volume of evidence for a second gunman behind the picket fence (would you like to explain away all of that evidence?) That person in the TSBD’s job was not to kill JFK – unless he got lucky with the Carcano, he was there to attract attention to the sixth floor where they would find Oswald’s gun – and why he wore white. Snipers wear clothes that blend into the background – not something that shouts – “here I am”!!
The shooter in the sniper’s nest was NOT Oswald. He was a military professional who had enough time to escape the TSBD before Truly and Baker turned up – or any of the women running in high heeled shoes across the floor and down several flights of stairs- a similar distance he would make – but much faster.
Rather than challenging my logic, perhaps you ought to challenge the ubiquitous illogical myth that many government agents enabled the assassination based on suppositions that do not fit with the facts, and has never lead to any of them revealing the ‘truth’.
-
"You are entitled to whatever opinion you want."
As are you Charles.
You accept Rowland's observation of a man with with a scoped rifle on the 6th floor and that the man had a shirt on over a t-shirt, but you don't accept the colour of the shirt he gives - "a very light-colored shirt, white or a light blue"
The opinion I have allows me to take witness statements at face value rather than assume 'what they really meant to say'.
It's not about semantics.
Different garments have different names - trousers are called trousers, jackets are called jackets etc.
Different types of shirt have different names.
You, yourself have demonstrated this in your last few posts:
"In 1963, shirt and ties (often with coats) were more commonly worn than they are these days. Especially among office workers, sales people, etc. Therefore I believe most of these witnesses are most likely describing his t-shirt."
Here you specifically delineate the difference between a shirt and Oswald's t-shirt.
A white t-shirt is an iconic garment and instantly recognisable (think James Dean). Everyone knows what a t-shirt is and when trying to give an accurate description it would be stated as such.
There can be absolutely no doubt that these witnesses are not describing a t-shirt.
They are doing what you have naturally done - recognised the difference between a shirt and a t-shirt.
Really?
(https://i.postimg.cc/Yq0gw9yt/Oswaldmugshot.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Feel free to post your own copy of his mugshot and see if yours is any less brilliant white.
"The circumstantial evidence suggests that LHO was in the sniper’s nest at the time of the assassination."
This is completely wrong.
Every single piece of credible circumstantial evidence available regarding who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald.
We are in the midst of a discussion wherein four eye-witnesses are describing clothing Oswald wasn't wearing and didn't own. This is really strong circumstantial evidence that the shooter was not Oswald. Just because you are trying to wish it away is meaningless.
"The circumstantial evidence suggests that LHO was in the sniper’s nest at the time of the assassination. This includes fingerprints, numerous witness descriptions of the shooter, no alibi, LHO’s rifle and ammo, LHO last reported seen on the sixth floor, no one saw LHO elsewhere, no strangers reported seen in the TSBD any any of the people who worked there (even after each one being asked that specific questions by the FBI) etc, etc."
There is so much wrong in this paragraph I refuse to get involved. All that needs to be said is that there not a single point you've made here that puts Oswald in the SN at the time of the assassination. Not one. Not even close.
That you think you have provided evidence placing him there at the time of the shooting is your issue, not mine.
It smacks of the LNers belief that it is a proven fact Oswald took the shots, when it is just another theory.
"If there is any credible evidence of someone else in the sniper’s nest at the time of the assassination, I am unaware of it."
Just as you are unaware of any credible evidence placing Oswald in the SN at the time of the assassination.
But that's a biased opinion.
As are you Charles.
You accept Rowland's observation of a man with with a scoped rifle on the 6th floor and that the man had a shirt on over a t-shirt, but you don't accept the colour of the shirt he gives - "a very light-colored shirt, white or a light blue"
The opinion I have allows me to take witness statements at face value rather than assume 'what they really meant to say'.
I haven't said what I accept from Rowland's account. I offered a reasonable explanation for anyone who might believe his description is accurate. Ignoring the explanation and jumping to other conclusions isn't going to win you any arguments.
It's not about semantics.
Different garments have different names - trousers are called trousers, jackets are called jackets etc.
Different types of shirt have different names.
You, yourself have demonstrated this in your last few posts:
"In 1963, shirt and ties (often with coats) were more commonly worn than they are these days. Especially among office workers, sales people, etc. Therefore I believe most of these witnesses are most likely describing his t-shirt."
Here you specifically delineate the difference between a shirt and Oswald's t-shirt.
A white t-shirt is an iconic garment and instantly recognisable (think James Dean). Everyone knows what a t-shirt is and when trying to give an accurate description it would be stated as such.
There can be absolutely no doubt that these witnesses are not describing a t-shirt.
They are doing what you have naturally done - recognised the difference between a shirt and a t-shirt.
That's nonsense and wishful thinking. Semantics are at the heart of your opinions. The witnesses do not specify an open collared shirt, only open-neck. I believe they are simply differentiating between someone wearing a buttoned up collared shirt (usually with a tie) and someone who is not.
Really?
(https://i.postimg.cc/Yq0gw9yt/Oswaldmugshot.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Feel free to post your own copy of his mugshot and see if yours is any less brilliant white.
Posting an over-exposed photo isn't going to cut the mustard.
Compare the whites in the officers' attires to the dingy t-shirt LHO is wearing in this photo:
(https://i.vgy.me/3XYb4p.png)
There is so much wrong in this paragraph I refuse to get involved. All that needs to be said is that there not a single point you've made here that puts Oswald in the SN at the time of the assassination. Not one. Not even close.
That you think you have provided evidence placing him there at the time of the shooting is your issue, not mine.
It smacks of the LNers belief that it is a proven fact Oswald took the shots, when it is just another theory.
Circumstantial evidence is cumulative. A jury is required to consider the totality of the evidence. Ask Scott Peterson about circumstantial evidence. I believe he is still in prison.
-
As are you Charles.
You accept Rowland's observation of a man with with a scoped rifle on the 6th floor and that the man had a shirt on over a t-shirt, but you don't accept the colour of the shirt he gives - "a very light-colored shirt, white or a light blue"
The opinion I have allows me to take witness statements at face value rather than assume 'what they really meant to say'.
I haven't said what I accept from Rowland's account. I offered a reasonable explanation for anyone who might believe his description is accurate. Ignoring the explanation and jumping to other conclusions isn't going to win you any arguments.
It's not about semantics.
Different garments have different names - trousers are called trousers, jackets are called jackets etc.
Different types of shirt have different names.
You, yourself have demonstrated this in your last few posts:
"In 1963, shirt and ties (often with coats) were more commonly worn than they are these days. Especially among office workers, sales people, etc. Therefore I believe most of these witnesses are most likely describing his t-shirt."
Here you specifically delineate the difference between a shirt and Oswald's t-shirt.
A white t-shirt is an iconic garment and instantly recognisable (think James Dean). Everyone knows what a t-shirt is and when trying to give an accurate description it would be stated as such.
There can be absolutely no doubt that these witnesses are not describing a t-shirt.
They are doing what you have naturally done - recognised the difference between a shirt and a t-shirt.
That's nonsense and wishful thinking. Semantics are at the heart of your opinions. The witnesses do not specify an open collared shirt, only open-neck. I believe they are simply differentiating between someone wearing a buttoned up collared shirt (usually with a tie) and someone who is not.
Really?
(https://i.postimg.cc/Yq0gw9yt/Oswaldmugshot.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Feel free to post your own copy of his mugshot and see if yours is any less brilliant white.
Posting an over-exposed photo isn't going to cut the mustard.
Compare the whites in the officers' attires to the dingy t-shirt LHO is wearing in this photo:
(https://i.vgy.me/3XYb4p.png)
There is so much wrong in this paragraph I refuse to get involved. All that needs to be said is that there not a single point you've made here that puts Oswald in the SN at the time of the assassination. Not one. Not even close.
That you think you have provided evidence placing him there at the time of the shooting is your issue, not mine.
It smacks of the LNers belief that it is a proven fact Oswald took the shots, when it is just another theory.
Circumstantial evidence is cumulative. A jury is required to consider the totality of the evidence. Ask Scott Peterson about circumstantial evidence. I believe he is still in prison.
If the shooter was wearing a t-shirt the witnesses would have said so.
You don't believe that.
I do.
I believe Rowland is describing the same man as Fischer, Edwards and Brennan and he describes a shirt open at the collar.
I believe the witnesses would know the difference between a t-shirt and a shirt.
You don't.
Fair enough.
Just for fun, Google "Open Neck Shirt".
See if anyone else agrees with your suspect assertion that this refers to a t-shirt (spoiler alert - the dozens of images that come up have shirts open at the collar. Looks like it's only you).
-
It was a slick and professional job because the President was killed, Oswald was implicated, and the perpetrators escaped…job done!
It means…..as long as the bullets could be recovered -whether that was in somebody in the car – or the car itself, or even recovered from Dealey Plaza, they would be traced back to the gun deliberately left on the sixth floor, thus implicating Oswald. Just because something is ‘dealt with in the thread’ does not mean it is a fact! There is a volume of evidence for a second gunman behind the picket fence (would you like to explain away all of that evidence?) That person in the TSBD’s job was not to kill JFK – unless he got lucky with the Carcano, he was there to attract attention to the sixth floor where they would find Oswald’s gun – and why he wore white. Snipers wear clothes that blend into the background – not something that shouts – “here I am”!!
The shooter in the sniper’s nest was NOT Oswald. He was a military professional who had enough time to escape the TSBD before Truly and Baker turned up – or any of the women running in high heeled shoes across the floor and down several flights of stairs- a similar distance he would make – but much faster.
Rather than challenging my logic, perhaps you ought to challenge the ubiquitous illogical myth that many government agents enabled the assassination based on suppositions that do not fit with the facts, and has never lead to any of them revealing the ‘truth’.
"There is a volume of evidence for a second gunman behind the picket fence (would you like to explain away all of that evidence?)"
Yes, I would.
You bring on the strongest arguments for why you believe there was a gunman on the GK and I'll explain it away.
"Rather than challenging my logic,"
You're clearly unaware with how this forum works.
You might believe you get to post any nonsense you want without being challenged on it but you're wrong.
You've got to back up any claims you make.
And your "logic" regarding the TSBD shooter is non-existent so I can't challenge it.
Maybe take us through how this shooter knew the 6th floor would be available? That it wouldn't be packed with employees.
And why do you think he was a "distraction" when only two people actually saw him during the shooting out of the hundreds in Dealey Plaza. How does your "logic" equate that with a distraction? and what was he supposed to be distracting people from? The shooter on the GK?
-
A shooter positioned OUTSIDE of the N-S section of picket fencing makes a lot more sense. This possible shooter would generally be in the area of the Large Tree/Black Dog Man/Gordon Arnold/Badge Man area.
-
If the shooter was wearing a t-shirt the witnesses would have said so.
You don't believe that.
I do.
I believe Rowland is describing the same man as Fischer, Edwards and Brennan and he describes a shirt open at the collar.
I believe the witnesses would know the difference between a t-shirt and a shirt.
You don't.
Fair enough.
Just for fun, Google "Open Neck Shirt".
See if anyone else agrees with your suspect assertion that this refers to a t-shirt (spoiler alert - the dozens of images that come up have shirts open at the collar. Looks like it's only you).
I believe Rowland is describing the same man as Fischer, Edwards and Brennan and he describes a shirt open at the collar.
I believe the witnesses would know the difference between a t-shirt and a shirt.
Knowing the difference and being able to testify whether or not it was one or the other are two different things.
Mr. FISCHER - He was in the---as you're looking toward that window, he was in the lower right portion of the window. He seemed to be sitting a little forward.
And he had--he had on an open-neck shirt, but it-uh--could have been a sport shirt or a T-shirt. It was light in color; probably white, I couldn't tell whether it had long sleeves or whether it was a short-sleeved shirt, but it was open-neck and light in color.
Just for fun, Google "Open Neck Shirt".
See if anyone else agrees with your suspect assertion that this refers to a t-shirt (spoiler alert - the dozens of images that come up have shirts open at the collar. Looks like it's only you).
No, Ronald B. Fischer was an eye witness and I have posted his testimony regarding this question. It isn't only me.
-
"There is a volume of evidence for a second gunman behind the picket fence (would you like to explain away all of that evidence?)"
Yes, I would.
You bring on the strongest arguments for why you believe there was a gunman on the GK and I'll explain it away.
"Rather than challenging my logic,"
You're clearly unaware with how this forum works.
You might believe you get to post any nonsense you want without being challenged on it but you're wrong.
You've got to back up any claims you make.
And your "logic" regarding the TSBD shooter is non-existent so I can't challenge it.
Maybe take us through how this shooter knew the 6th floor would be available? That it wouldn't be packed with employees.
And why do you think he was a "distraction" when only two people actually saw him during the shooting out of the hundreds in Dealey Plaza. How does your "logic" equate that with a distraction? and what was he supposed to be distracting people from? The shooter on the GK?
Oh dear - you believe I came on the forum not thinking my ideas would be challenged!! It is absolutely why I came on the forum -to challenge and be challenged, but hopefully with a level of decorum. I am not going to call what you believe 'nonsense' - just misjudged or misinformed in my opinion. 'Nonsense' are conspiracy theories with no basis in fact such as the 'fake' moon landings or the flat earth. We all share the same passion to find the truth about the assassination, but our ideas differ because there are so many holes in the information available. We are all seeking to 'fill the gaps' with our own ideas, very many that are plausible if not conclusive. Debate is healthy and helpful and I hope it can continue to be friendly and informative.
-
Oh dear - you believe I came on the forum not thinking my ideas would be challenged!! It is absolutely why I came on the forum -to challenge and be challenged, but hopefully with a level of decorum. I am not going to call what you believe 'nonsense' - just misjudged or misinformed in my opinion. 'Nonsense' are conspiracy theories with no basis in fact such as the 'fake' moon landings or the flat earth. We all share the same passion to find the truth about the assassination, but our ideas differ because there are so many holes in the information available. We are all seeking to 'fill the gaps' with our own ideas, very many that are plausible if not conclusive. Debate is healthy and helpful and I hope it can continue to be friendly and informative.
We have only a finite number of years here on Earth. Will you be getting around to your evidence soon? I've seen a lot of generalization and editorializing but not much in the way of specifics.
-
I believe Rowland is describing the same man as Fischer, Edwards and Brennan and he describes a shirt open at the collar.
I believe the witnesses would know the difference between a t-shirt and a shirt.
Knowing the difference and being able to testify whether or not it was one or the other are two different things.
Mr. FISCHER - He was in the---as you're looking toward that window, he was in the lower right portion of the window. He seemed to be sitting a little forward.
And he had--he had on an open-neck shirt, but it-uh--could have been a sport shirt or a T-shirt. It was light in color; probably white, I couldn't tell whether it had long sleeves or whether it was a short-sleeved shirt, but it was open-neck and light in color.
Just for fun, Google "Open Neck Shirt".
See if anyone else agrees with your suspect assertion that this refers to a t-shirt (spoiler alert - the dozens of images that come up have shirts open at the collar. Looks like it's only you).
No, Ronald B. Fischer was an eye witness and I have posted his testimony regarding this question. It isn't only me.
Obviously, you didn't Google "Open Neck Shirt".
You appear to be the only person on the planet who believes it can refer to a t-shirt.
-
Obviously, you didn't Google "Open Neck Shirt".
You appear to be the only person on the planet who believes it can refer to a t-shirt.
I think that it is more like that you are the only person in the universe who believes it can’t.
(https://i.vgy.me/QNN0Qg.jpg)
-
Obviously, you didn't Google "Open Neck Shirt".
You appear to be the only person on the planet who believes it can refer to a t-shirt.
I would be #2 in believing that everybody knows the difference between an "Open Neck Shirt" and a "T-Shirt". This is what we get when people try to manipulate Eyewitness Testimony. A Square Peg being jammed into a Round Hole. It does Not work. Never has.
-
I think that it is more like that you are the only person in the universe who believes it can’t.
(https://i.vgy.me/QNN0Qg.jpg)
:D :D :D
Your desperation knows no bounds.
You are actually willing to blow your whole argument out of the water to try and score a point!
It is such a LNer trait.
What did you find when you Googled "Open Neck Shirt"?
Did you see, like i did, dozens and dozens of images of shirts WITH A COLLAR and not a single image of the classic crew neck t-shirt Oswald was wearing?
Be honest now, because anyone can Google it.
(https://i.postimg.cc/bvQKS8RZ/t-shirt.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Oswald was wearing a classic crew-cut t-shirt. The four eye-witnesses below are not describing such a garment.
They are describing something Oswald was not wearing that day and did not possess.
It is really strong circumstantial evidence that the shooter was not Oswald.
"He had on a light shirt, a very light-colored shirt, white or a light blue or a color such as that. This was open at the collar. I think it was unbuttoned about halfway and then he had a regular t-shirt...under this..." Arnold Rowland
"And he had-he had on an open-neck shirt...It was light in color: probably white, I couldn’t tell whether it had long sleeves or whether it was a short-sleeved shirt, but it was open-neck and light in color." Ronald Fischer
"Light colored shirt, short sleeve and open neck" Robert Edwards
"I mean other than light color - not a real white shirt, in other words. If it was a white shirt, it was on the dingy side" Howard Brennan
You are free to believe whatever you need to, Charles.
-
:D :D :D
Your desperation knows no bounds.
You are actually willing to blow your whole argument out of the water to try and score a point!
It is such a LNer trait.
What did you find when you Googled "Open Neck Shirt"?
Did you see, like i did, dozens and dozens of images of shirts WITH A COLLAR and not a single image of the classic crew neck t-shirt Oswald was wearing?
Be honest now, because anyone can Google it.
(https://i.postimg.cc/bvQKS8RZ/t-shirt.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Oswald was wearing a classic crew-cut t-shirt. The four eye-witnesses below are not describing such a garment.
They are describing something Oswald was not wearing that day and did not possess.
It is really strong circumstantial evidence that the shooter was not Oswald.
"He had on a light shirt, a very light-colored shirt, white or a light blue or a color such as that. This was open at the collar. I think it was unbuttoned about halfway and then he had a regular t-shirt...under this..." Arnold Rowland
"And he had-he had on an open-neck shirt...It was light in color: probably white, I couldn’t tell whether it had long sleeves or whether it was a short-sleeved shirt, but it was open-neck and light in color." Ronald Fischer
"Light colored shirt, short sleeve and open neck" Robert Edwards
"I mean other than light color - not a real white shirt, in other words. If it was a white shirt, it was on the dingy side" Howard Brennan
You are free to believe whatever you need to, Charles.
None of the witnesses said anything about a collar. A t-shirt can be considered an open-neck shirt (if it is open around the neck, which LHO’s shirt obviously is). I believe they are all describing LHO and his dingy white open neck shirt, as can be seen in the photo below. It might technically be considered a crew neck (versus a V-neck) shirt. However it is a bit oversized; plus the neck area most definitely appears to be open. It looks dingy and worn out and the elasticity around the neck area appears to have worn out also. This leaves the neck area significantly more open than if the shirt was newer. Hence, the open-necked shirt descriptions.
I have worn open-neck undershirts (V-neck t-shirts) practically my entire adult life. I have also done my own laundry practically my entire adult life. So, I know first hand how they can get dingy (if not whitened regularly) and the neck area will become “relaxed” over time. When it comes to the witness descriptions, the appearance of an open-neck shirt (as seen in the photo below) is what matters. How the shirt would have appeared when it was newer is irrevelevant.
Believe whatever you wish. But the idea that LHO didn’t own a shirt like the one in the witness descriptions is nonsense.
(https://i.vgy.me/t5LMag.jpg)
-
A "T-Shirt" is Not an "open neck shirt". Same goes for a "Wife Beater". Both are NOT "open neck shirts". An "open neck shirt" is the same thing as a "button up" shirt. A "pull over" would be as close to an "open neck" shirt as you can get. A "pull over" is not a "T-Shirt".
-
None of the witnesses said anything about a collar. A t-shirt can be considered an open-neck shirt (if it is open around the neck, which LHO’s shirt obviously is). I believe they are all describing LHO and his dingy white open neck shirt, as can be seen in the photo below. It might technically be considered a crew neck (versus a V-neck) shirt. However it is a bit oversized; plus the neck area most definitely appears to be open. It looks dingy and worn out and the elasticity around the neck area appears to have worn out also. This leaves the neck area significantly more open than if the shirt was newer. Hence, the open-necked shirt descriptions.
I have worn open-neck undershirts (V-neck t-shirts) practically my entire adult life. I have also done my own laundry practically my entire adult life. So, I know first hand how they can get dingy (if not whitened regularly) and the neck area will become “relaxed” over time. When it comes to the witness descriptions, the appearance of an open-neck shirt (as seen in the photo below) is what matters. How the shirt would have appeared when it was newer is irrevelevant.
Believe whatever you wish. But the idea that LHO didn’t own a shirt like the one in the witness descriptions is nonsense.
(https://i.vgy.me/t5LMag.jpg)
"None of the witnesses said anything about a collar"
This isn't true and, more importantly, you know it's not true.
You are clearly willing to go to any length rather than simply accept the common sense, face value interpretation of these key witness reports.
Not only does one of the witnesses specifically mention a collar but the accepted interpretation of "open-necked shirt" "usually refers to a shirt with a collar, like a button down shirt".
It never refers to the classic crew neck t-shirt Oswald was wearing (you actually posted this yourself).
You are free to believe whatever you need to believe.
Even when it is in direct contradiction with the evidence.
All four eye-witnesses are describing are garment Oswald was not wearing that day.
A garment he didn't have in his possession at the time of his arrest.
Collectively, these eye-witnesses are describing a white/off-white shirt open at the collar.
They are 100% NOT describing the classic crew-neck t-shirt Oswald was wearing.
Obviously you cannot accept this because it is strong circumstantial evidence that the shooter was not Oswald.
Whereas I allow the evidence to inform my opinion, you try to change the evidence to support your preconceived conclusion.
"He had on a light shirt, a very light-colored shirt, white or a light blue or a color such as that. This was open at the collar. I think it was unbuttoned about halfway and then he had a regular t-shirt...under this..." Arnold Rowland
"And he had-he had on an open-neck shirt...It was light in color: probably white, I couldn’t tell whether it had long sleeves or whether it was a short-sleeved shirt, but it was open-neck and light in color." Ronald Fischer
"Light colored shirt, short sleeve and open neck" Robert Edwards
"I mean other than light color - not a real white shirt, in other words. If it was a white shirt, it was on the dingy side" Howard Brennan
-
"None of the witnesses said anything about a collar"
This isn't true and, more importantly, you know it's not true.
You are clearly willing to go to any length rather than simply accept the common sense, face value interpretation of these key witness reports.
Not only does one of the witnesses specifically mention a collar but the accepted interpretation of "open-necked shirt" "usually refers to a shirt with a collar, like a button down shirt".
It never refers to the classic crew neck t-shirt Oswald was wearing (you actually posted this yourself).
You are free to believe whatever you need to believe.
Even when it is in direct contradiction with the evidence.
All four eye-witnesses are describing are garment Oswald was not wearing that day.
A garment he didn't have in his possession at the time of his arrest.
Collectively, these eye-witnesses are describing a white/off-white shirt open at the collar.
They are 100% NOT describing the classic crew-neck t-shirt Oswald was wearing.
Obviously you cannot accept this because it is strong circumstantial evidence that the shooter was not Oswald.
Whereas I allow the evidence to inform my opinion, you try to change the evidence to support your preconceived conclusion.
"He had on a light shirt, a very light-colored shirt, white or a light blue or a color such as that. This was open at the collar. I think it was unbuttoned about halfway and then he had a regular t-shirt...under this..." Arnold Rowland
"And he had-he had on an open-neck shirt...It was light in color: probably white, I couldn’t tell whether it had long sleeves or whether it was a short-sleeved shirt, but it was open-neck and light in color." Ronald Fischer
"Light colored shirt, short sleeve and open neck" Robert Edwards
"I mean other than light color - not a real white shirt, in other words. If it was a white shirt, it was on the dingy side" Howard Brennan
The image hosting site appears to be having issues right now. So I am copying and pasting the Google AI response to the question: Does an open-neck shirt need to have a collar in order to be classified as an open-neck shirt?
“ AI Overview
+7
No, an open-neck shirt does not necessarily need a collar to be classified as such.
Explanation
An open-necked shirt or blouse is generally defined as one where the top button is unfastened or that features no buttons at the top, leaving the neck area exposed.
While many open-necked shirts do have collars (often referred to as "open-collared"), the defining characteristic is the open neckline, rather than the presence of a collar itself.
Some shirts are specifically designed to be collarless, but can still have an open neck, like certain V-neck or scoop-neck styles.
In essence, the "open-neck" aspect refers to the open or unfastened nature of the neckline, allowing for a relaxed or casual style, whether or not a collar is present.”
What is important and relevant to this discussion is the appearance of the shirt on 11-22-63. As can be seen in numerous photos, LHO’s dingy white t-shirt is worn out and distinctly quite open at the neck. What it might have appeared like when it was newer is irrelevant to this discussion.
-
The image hosting site appears to be having issues right now. So I am copying and pasting the Google AI response to the question: Does an open-neck shirt need to have a collar in order to be classified as an open-neck shirt?
“ AI Overview
+7
No, an open-neck shirt does not necessarily need a collar to be classified as such.
Explanation
An open-necked shirt or blouse is generally defined as one where the top button is unfastened or that features no buttons at the top, leaving the neck area exposed.
While many open-necked shirts do have collars (often referred to as "open-collared"), the defining characteristic is the open neckline, rather than the presence of a collar itself.
Some shirts are specifically designed to be collarless, but can still have an open neck, like certain V-neck or scoop-neck styles.
In essence, the "open-neck" aspect refers to the open or unfastened nature of the neckline, allowing for a relaxed or casual style, whether or not a collar is present.”
What is important and relevant to this discussion is the appearance of the shirt on 11-22-63. As can be seen in numerous photos, LHO’s dingy white t-shirt is worn out and distinctly quite open at the neck. What it might have appeared like when it was newer is irrelevant to this discussion.
I have a lot of respect for you Charles, so it is a great pity to see you resorting to such underhand tactics to try to 'score a point' rather than engage in a genuine debate. You told an untruth when you posted this:
"None of the witnesses said anything about a collar"
I called you out on this untruth and, rather than acknowledge it, you have decided to ignore it and carry on with this ridiculous post about a shirt not needing a collar to be considered an "open-neck shirt". Just to clarify, the post you responded to actually contained Arnold Rowland's testimony that the shirt worn by the man on the 6th floor was "open at the collar".
Just a few posts ago I made this specific point:
Rowland specifically describes it as being open at the collar with a t-shirt underneath so I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
This was part of your answer:
"...Rowland (the only one of the witnesses you cite, who gave that description) said he saw this person on the west end of the building about 15-minutes before the shooting. I think it is entirely reasonable that the assassin could have still been wearing his shirt over the t-shirt at that point in time, shedding the outer shirt later, only after he got hot due to sitting in the sun shining in through the sniper’s nest window. If I remember correctly, Rowland gave that description months after the assassination (as he was embellishing some other aspects of what he said he saw)."
Not only did you acknowledge that Rowland testified about the shirt having a collar, you then postulated that the "assassin could have still been wearing his shirt over the t-shirt at that point in time". So, even though you have acknowledged and discussed Rowland's testimony concerning the shirt having a collar, you then turn around and argue that none of the eye-witnesses mentioned the shooter's shirt having a collar.
I correctly called you out on this and you simply ignored this as if nothing had been said.
And just to emphasise Rowland's point, he also refers to the shirt being "unbuttoned". He describes the shirt as being "a light shirt, a very light-colored shirt, white or a light blue or a color such as that".
He is clearly not describing the reddish/brown shirt Oswald wore to work that day or the pure white, classic crew-neck t-shirt he wore under this shirt.
Even the AI overviews you post contain information completely contradicting your assertion that these eye-witnesses are describing Oswald's classic crew-neck t-shirt:
"...when someone refers to an open-necked shirt, it could very well be describing a t-shirt with a neckline that is not a classic crew-neck"
You posted that.
You posted that when the eye-witnesses refer to an open-necked shirt they are NOT describing Oswald's t-shirt.
The white t-shirt Oswald was wearing that day is an iconic garment, instantly recognisable as a specific piece of clothing - a t-shirt,
If the man on the 6th floor was wearing a t-shirt all four men would have recognised it as a t-shirt (just as you do).
There can be no serious doubt that Rowland, Brennan, Fischer and Edwards are describing the same man on the 6th floor and that this man was wearing a very light coloured shirt, open at the collar.
Oswald wasn't wearing such a shirt that day.and didn't have such a shirt in his possessions when arrested.
In effect, these eye-witnesses are describing someone other than Lee Harvey Oswald on the 6th floor.
It must be remembered that this is not the only circumstantial evidence that points to someone other than Oswald being on the 6th floor around the time of the shooting.
-
I have a lot of respect for you Charles, so it is a great pity to see you resorting to such underhand tactics to try to 'score a point' rather than engage in a genuine debate. You told an untruth when you posted this:
"None of the witnesses said anything about a collar"
I called you out on this untruth and, rather than acknowledge it, you have decided to ignore it and carry on with this ridiculous post about a shirt not needing a collar to be considered an "open-neck shirt". Just to clarify, the post you responded to actually contained Arnold Rowland's testimony that the shirt worn by the man on the 6th floor was "open at the collar".
Just a few posts ago I made this specific point:
Rowland specifically describes it as being open at the collar with a t-shirt underneath so I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
This was part of your answer:
"...Rowland (the only one of the witnesses you cite, who gave that description) said he saw this person on the west end of the building about 15-minutes before the shooting. I think it is entirely reasonable that the assassin could have still been wearing his shirt over the t-shirt at that point in time, shedding the outer shirt later, only after he got hot due to sitting in the sun shining in through the sniper’s nest window. If I remember correctly, Rowland gave that description months after the assassination (as he was embellishing some other aspects of what he said he saw)."
Not only did you acknowledge that Rowland testified about the shirt having a collar, you then postulated that the "assassin could have still been wearing his shirt over the t-shirt at that point in time". So, even though you have acknowledged and discussed Rowland's testimony concerning the shirt having a collar, you then turn around and argue that none of the eye-witnesses mentioned the shooter's shirt having a collar.
I correctly called you out on this and you simply ignored this as if nothing had been said.
And just to emphasise Rowland's point, he also refers to the shirt being "unbuttoned". He describes the shirt as being "a light shirt, a very light-colored shirt, white or a light blue or a color such as that".
He is clearly not describing the reddish/brown shirt Oswald wore to work that day or the pure white, classic crew-neck t-shirt he wore under this shirt.
Even the AI overviews you post contain information completely contradicting your assertion that these eye-witnesses are describing Oswald's classic crew-neck t-shirt:
"...when someone refers to an open-necked shirt, it could very well be describing a t-shirt with a neckline that is not a classic crew-neck"
You posted that.
You posted that when the eye-witnesses refer to an open-necked shirt they are NOT describing Oswald's t-shirt.
The white t-shirt Oswald was wearing that day is an iconic garment, instantly recognisable as a specific piece of clothing - a t-shirt,
If the man on the 6th floor was wearing a t-shirt all four men would have recognised it as a t-shirt (just as you do).
There can be no serious doubt that Rowland, Brennan, Fischer and Edwards are describing the same man on the 6th floor and that this man was wearing a very light coloured shirt, open at the collar.
Oswald wasn't wearing such a shirt that day.and didn't have such a shirt in his possessions when arrested.
In effect, these eye-witnesses are describing someone other than Lee Harvey Oswald on the 6th floor.
It must be remembered that this is not the only circumstantial evidence that points to someone other than Oswald being on the 6th floor around the time of the shooting.
These are the facts:
Arnold L. Rowland, affidavit dated 11/22/63 describing the man with the rifle he said that he saw on the west end of the TSBD about 15-minutes before the assassination.
“This man appeared to be a white man and appeared to have a light colored shirt on, open at the neck. He appeared to be of slender build and appeared to have dark hair.”
Now, for the witness descriptions of the man they said they saw in the sniper’s nest window on the east end of the TSBD just seconds before, and during the assassination.
Howard Brennan’s 11/22/63 affidavit:
“ He was a white man in his early 30's, slender, nice looking, slender and would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds. He had on light colored clothing but definately [sic] not a suit.”
Howard Brennan’s WC testimony:
“ Mr. BELIN. Could you describe the man you saw in the window on the sixth floor?
Mr. BRENNAN. To my best description, a man in his early thirties, fair complexion, slender but neat, neat slender, possibly 5-foot 10.
Mr. BELIN. About what weight?
Mr. BRENNAN. Oh, at--I calculated, I think, from 160 to 170 pounds.
Mr. BELIN. A white man?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what kind of clothes he was wearing?
Mr. BRENNAN. Light colored clothes, more of a khaki color.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember the color of his hair?
Mr. BRENNAN. No.”
.
.
.
“ Mr. BELIN. Do you remember the specific color of any shirt that the man with the rifle was wearing?
Mr. BRENNAN. No, other than light, and a khaki color--maybe in khaki. I mean other than light color--not a real white shirt, in other words. If it was a white shirt, it was on the dingy side.
Mr. BELIN. I am handing you what the court reporter has marked as Commission Exhibit 150.
Does this look like it might or might not be the shirt, or can you make at this time any positive identification of any kind?
Mr. BRENNAN. I would have expected it to be a little lighter--a shade or so lighter.
Mr. BELIN. Than Exhibit 150?
Mr. BRENNAN. That is the best of my recollection.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Could you see the man's trousers at all?
Do you remember any color?
Mr. BRENNAN. I remembered them at that time as being similar to the same color of the shirt or a little lighter. And that was another thing that I called their attention to at the lineup.
Mr. BELIN. What do you mean by that?
Mr. BRENNAN. That he was not dressed in the same clothes that I saw the man in the window.
Mr. BELIN. You mean with reference to the trousers or the shirt?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, not particularly either. In other words, he just didn't have the same clothes on.”
Robert E. Edwards,’ 11/22/63 affidavit:
“I noticed that he had on a sport shirt, it was light colored, it was yellow or white, something to that effect, and his hair was rather short; I thought he might be something around twenty-six, as near as I could tell.”
Robert E. Edwards,’ WC testimony:
“ Mr. BELIN - What kind of clothes did he have on?
Mr. EDWARDS - Light colored shirt, short sleeve and open neck.
Mr. BELIN - How much of him could you see? Shoulder up, waist up, knees up, or what?
Mr. EDWARDS - From the waist on. From the abdomen or stomach up what,
Mr. BELIN - Was the man fat, thin, or average in size?
Mr. EDWARDS - Oh, about average. Possibly thin.
Mr. BELIN - Could you tell whether he was light skinned or medium skin or if you couldtell?
Mr. EDWARDS - No.
Mr. BELIN - Was the sun shining in or not, if you know?
Mr. EDWARDS - Don't know.
Mr. BELIN - Was the sun out that day?
Mr. EDWARDS - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - What color hair did the man have?
Mr. EDWARDS - Light brown.
Mr. BELIN - Light brown hair?
Mr. EDWARDS - That is what I would say; yes, sir.“
Ronald B. Fischer’s 11/22/63 affidavit:
“ I looked up at the window and I noticed that he seemed to be laying down there or in a funny position anyway, because all I could see was his head. I noticed that he was light-headed and that he had on an open-neck shirt, and that was before the motorcade rounded the corner. I noticed his complexion seemed to be clear, and that he was in this twenty's [sic], appeared to be in his twenty's [sic].”
Ronald B. Fischer’s WC testimony:
“ Mr. FISCHER - He was in the---as you're looking toward that window, he was in the lower right portion of the window. He seemed to be sitting a little forward.
And he had--he had on an open-neck shirt, but it-uh--could have been a sport shirt or a T-shirt. It was light in color; probably white, I couldn't tell whether it had long sleeves or whether it was a short-sleeved shirt, but it was open-neck and light in color.
Uh---he had a slender face and neck---uh---and he had a light complexion----he was a white man. And he looked to be 22 or 24 years old.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember anything about the color of his hair?
Mr. FISCHER - His hair seemed to be---uh---neither light nor dark; possibly a light---well, possibly a---well, it was a brown was what it was; but as to whether it was light or dark, I can't say.”
.
.
.
“ Mr. BELIN - The statement here says that he was light-headed and that he had on an open-neck shirt. Did he have an open---neck shirt on?
Mr. FISCHER - Yes.”
Amos Euins’ WC testimony:
“Mr. SPECTER. Now, could you tell what color hair he had?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Could you tell whether his hair was dark or light?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. How far back did the bald spot on his head go?
Mr. EUINS. I would say about right along in here.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating about 2 1/2 inches above where you hairline is. Is that about what you are saying?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir; right along in here.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, did you get a very good look at that man, Amos?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir; I did not.
Mr. SPECTER. Were you able to tell anything about the clothes he was wearing?
Mr. EUINS: No, sir.”
None of the witnesses who said they saw a man in the sniper’s nest window said anything about a collar. And Arnold Rowland’s 11/22/63 affidavit doesn’t say anything about a collar either. I have already addressed the later testimony of Rowland. If you choose to believe he saw a collar, then it was about 15-minutes before the assassination and about 100-feet west of the sniper’s nest window. And shedding an outer shirt between those two times and places is a reasonable possibility.
Again, the idea that “it couldn’t have been LHO because he didn’t have the shirt described” does not agree with the facts. The t-shirt on LHO when he was arrested is significantly more open at the neck than a typical V-neck (aka: open-neck) shirt. It is this open-neck appearance of the dingy-white shirt that is relevant and important.
-
These are the facts:
Arnold L. Rowland, affidavit dated 11/22/63 describing the man with the rifle he said that he saw on the west end of the TSBD about 15-minutes before the assassination.
“This man appeared to be a white man and appeared to have a light colored shirt on, open at the neck. He appeared to be of slender build and appeared to have dark hair.”
Now, for the witness descriptions of the man they said they saw in the sniper’s nest window on the east end of the TSBD just seconds before, and during the assassination.
Howard Brennan’s 11/22/63 affidavit:
“ He was a white man in his early 30's, slender, nice looking, slender and would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds. He had on light colored clothing but definately [sic] not a suit.”
Howard Brennan’s WC testimony:
“ Mr. BELIN. Could you describe the man you saw in the window on the sixth floor?
Mr. BRENNAN. To my best description, a man in his early thirties, fair complexion, slender but neat, neat slender, possibly 5-foot 10.
Mr. BELIN. About what weight?
Mr. BRENNAN. Oh, at--I calculated, I think, from 160 to 170 pounds.
Mr. BELIN. A white man?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what kind of clothes he was wearing?
Mr. BRENNAN. Light colored clothes, more of a khaki color.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember the color of his hair?
Mr. BRENNAN. No.”
.
.
.
“ Mr. BELIN. Do you remember the specific color of any shirt that the man with the rifle was wearing?
Mr. BRENNAN. No, other than light, and a khaki color--maybe in khaki. I mean other than light color--not a real white shirt, in other words. If it was a white shirt, it was on the dingy side.
Mr. BELIN. I am handing you what the court reporter has marked as Commission Exhibit 150.
Does this look like it might or might not be the shirt, or can you make at this time any positive identification of any kind?
Mr. BRENNAN. I would have expected it to be a little lighter--a shade or so lighter.
Mr. BELIN. Than Exhibit 150?
Mr. BRENNAN. That is the best of my recollection.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Could you see the man's trousers at all?
Do you remember any color?
Mr. BRENNAN. I remembered them at that time as being similar to the same color of the shirt or a little lighter. And that was another thing that I called their attention to at the lineup.
Mr. BELIN. What do you mean by that?
Mr. BRENNAN. That he was not dressed in the same clothes that I saw the man in the window.
Mr. BELIN. You mean with reference to the trousers or the shirt?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, not particularly either. In other words, he just didn't have the same clothes on.”
Robert E. Edwards,’ 11/22/63 affidavit:
“I noticed that he had on a sport shirt, it was light colored, it was yellow or white, something to that effect, and his hair was rather short; I thought he might be something around twenty-six, as near as I could tell.”
Robert E. Edwards,’ WC testimony:
“ Mr. BELIN - What kind of clothes did he have on?
Mr. EDWARDS - Light colored shirt, short sleeve and open neck.
Mr. BELIN - How much of him could you see? Shoulder up, waist up, knees up, or what?
Mr. EDWARDS - From the waist on. From the abdomen or stomach up what,
Mr. BELIN - Was the man fat, thin, or average in size?
Mr. EDWARDS - Oh, about average. Possibly thin.
Mr. BELIN - Could you tell whether he was light skinned or medium skin or if you couldtell?
Mr. EDWARDS - No.
Mr. BELIN - Was the sun shining in or not, if you know?
Mr. EDWARDS - Don't know.
Mr. BELIN - Was the sun out that day?
Mr. EDWARDS - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - What color hair did the man have?
Mr. EDWARDS - Light brown.
Mr. BELIN - Light brown hair?
Mr. EDWARDS - That is what I would say; yes, sir.“
Ronald B. Fischer’s 11/22/63 affidavit:
“ I looked up at the window and I noticed that he seemed to be laying down there or in a funny position anyway, because all I could see was his head. I noticed that he was light-headed and that he had on an open-neck shirt, and that was before the motorcade rounded the corner. I noticed his complexion seemed to be clear, and that he was in this twenty's [sic], appeared to be in his twenty's [sic].”
Ronald B. Fischer’s WC testimony:
“ Mr. FISCHER - He was in the---as you're looking toward that window, he was in the lower right portion of the window. He seemed to be sitting a little forward.
And he had--he had on an open-neck shirt, but it-uh--could have been a sport shirt or a T-shirt. It was light in color; probably white, I couldn't tell whether it had long sleeves or whether it was a short-sleeved shirt, but it was open-neck and light in color.
Uh---he had a slender face and neck---uh---and he had a light complexion----he was a white man. And he looked to be 22 or 24 years old.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember anything about the color of his hair?
Mr. FISCHER - His hair seemed to be---uh---neither light nor dark; possibly a light---well, possibly a---well, it was a brown was what it was; but as to whether it was light or dark, I can't say.”
.
.
.
“ Mr. BELIN - The statement here says that he was light-headed and that he had on an open-neck shirt. Did he have an open---neck shirt on?
Mr. FISCHER - Yes.”
Amos Euins’ WC testimony:
“Mr. SPECTER. Now, could you tell what color hair he had?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Could you tell whether his hair was dark or light?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. How far back did the bald spot on his head go?
Mr. EUINS. I would say about right along in here.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating about 2 1/2 inches above where you hairline is. Is that about what you are saying?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir; right along in here.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, did you get a very good look at that man, Amos?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir; I did not.
Mr. SPECTER. Were you able to tell anything about the clothes he was wearing?
Mr. EUINS: No, sir.”
None of the witnesses who said they saw a man in the sniper’s nest window said anything about a collar. And Arnold Rowland’s 11/22/63 affidavit doesn’t say anything about a collar either. I have already addressed the later testimony of Rowland. If you choose to believe he saw a collar, then it was about 15-minutes before the assassination and about 100-feet west of the sniper’s nest window. And shedding an outer shirt between those two times and places is a reasonable possibility.
Again, the idea that “it couldn’t have been LHO because he didn’t have the shirt described” does not agree with the facts. The t-shirt on LHO when he was arrested is significantly more open at the neck than a typical V-neck (aka: open-neck) shirt. It is this open-neck appearance of the dingy-white shirt that is relevant and important.
As stated at the beginning of this exchange - we will have to agree to disagree on this issue.
(https://i.postimg.cc/9Ms1TLj2/open-neckedshirt-AI.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Rowland specifically states the shirt had a collar and was unbuttoned. You might be free to ignore this bit I am not.
When Brennan is shown a collared shirt he doesn't say it was a t-shirt he saw or that it didn't have a collar. He merely states the shirt he saw was lighter in colour. In effect, he is confirming that the man he saw was wearing a collared shirt.
It is clear to anyone using common sense and being honest that these four eye-witnesses are not describing a white t-shirt. They are describing a very light coloured/white collared shirt open at the neck.
I believe your desperate attempt to argue that they are describing Oswald's brilliant white crew-neck t-shirt is based on your unwavering belief, even in the face on contrary evidence, that Oswald was the shooter.
And that's fair enough.
At least your not backing the ridiculous argument invented by Bill Chapman and resurrected by John Mytton, that daylight turns all colours white and that's why Oswald's shirt appeared to be white and not it's actual colour.
It is strong circumstantial evidence that the man on the 6th floor was not Oswald.
As is the passage of the Euins testimony you posted, that the shooter had a bald spot about "2 1/2 inches above where his hairline is" - meaning a bald spot on top of the man's head.
This bald spot could only be seen by Euins when the man tilted his head to look down the rifle to take aim, indicating that the shooter was left-handed.
It is also of interest that Euins didn't see a scope on the rifle (neither did Brennan), even though he got a clear look at the shooter taking aim. One would assume the shooter was looking into the scope as he was aiming but there didn't appear to be a scope on the rifle.
Just sayin'
-
As stated at the beginning of this exchange - we will have to agree to disagree on this issue.
(https://i.postimg.cc/9Ms1TLj2/open-neckedshirt-AI.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Rowland specifically states the shirt had a collar and was unbuttoned. You might be free to ignore this bit I am not.
When Brennan is shown a collared shirt he doesn't say it was a t-shirt he saw or that it didn't have a collar. He merely states the shirt he saw was lighter in colour. In effect, he is confirming that the man he saw was wearing a collared shirt.
It is clear to anyone using common sense and being honest that these four eye-witnesses are not describing a white t-shirt. They are describing a very light coloured/white collared shirt open at the neck.
I believe your desperate attempt to argue that they are describing Oswald's brilliant white crew-neck t-shirt is based on your unwavering belief, even in the face on contrary evidence, that Oswald was the shooter.
And that's fair enough.
At least your not backing the ridiculous argument invented by Bill Chapman and resurrected by John Mytton, that daylight turns all colours white and that's why Oswald's shirt appeared to be white and not it's actual colour.
It is strong circumstantial evidence that the man on the 6th floor was not Oswald.
As is the passage of the Euins testimony you posted, that the shooter had a bald spot about "2 1/2 inches above where his hairline is" - meaning a bald spot on top of the man's head.
This bald spot could only be seen by Euins when the man tilted his head to look down the rifle to take aim, indicating that the shooter was left-handed.
It is also of interest that Euins didn't see a scope on the rifle (neither did Brennan), even though he got a clear look at the shooter taking aim. One would assume the shooter was looking into the scope as he was aiming but there didn't appear to be a scope on the rifle.
Just sayin'
Rowland specifically states the shirt had a collar and was unbuttoned. You might be free to ignore this bit I am not.
Again, I haven't ignored it. Rowland's sighting was at a different time and place. His description was not of a man in the sniper's nest window or at the time of the shooting. It is reasonable to believe the outer shirt could have been shed during the ~15-minute interval. I am not contesting what Rowland said he saw. But I do believe he substantially embellished his testimony for the WC. Therefore I simply discount the WC testimony as compared to what he said in his 11/22/63 affidavit.
In effect, he is confirming that the man he saw was wearing a collared shirt.
No, Brennan did not confirm or deny that. He simply indicated a lighter shade.
It is clear to anyone using common sense and being honest that these four eye-witnesses are not describing a white t-shirt. They are describing a very light coloured/white collared shirt open at the neck.
That is simply not true whatsoever. First of all, again, an open-neck shirt does not need to have a collar in order to be classified as an open-neck shirt (per Google AI). Secondly, Ronald Fischer said specifically that it could have been a t-shirt (see that portion of his testimony below).
Mr. FISCHER. And he had--he had on an open-neck shirt, but it-uh--could have been a sport shirt or a T-shirt. It was light in color; probably white, I couldn't tell whether it had long sleeves or whether it was a short-sleeved shirt, but it was open-neck and light in color.
Uh---he had a slender face and neck---uh---and he had a light complexion----he was a white man. And he looked to be 22 or 24 years old.
I believe your desperate attempt to argue that they are describing Oswald's brilliant white crew-neck t-shirt ...
LHO's t-shirt was worn out and a very dingy white (nowhere near as white as the shirts worn by the LEOs in the same properly exposed photos which I already posted earlier in this thread).
It is strong circumstantial evidence that the man on the 6th floor was not Oswald.
No, the descriptions fit LHO's dingy white, very open at the collar, t-shirt quite well. The fact that all three witnesses, who described the shirt on the man in the sniper's nest window, apparently independently came up with the open-neck aspect is important. Because the large amount of openness of LHO's t-shirt in the neck area is probably its most striking and noticeable feature. This, along with the rest of their descriptions, is strong evidence that they were describing LHO.
As is the passage of the Euins testimony you posted, that the shooter had a bald spot about "2 1/2 inches above where his hairline is" - meaning a bald spot on top of the man's head.
Male pattern baldness includes a receding hairline as we can see on LHO. I believe that Euins was probably pointing to one of the areas on his head comparable to where LHO's hairline had already receded substantially. Overall Euins' testimony lacks details, so I have to discount his description substantially anyway.
This bald spot could only be seen by Euins when the man tilted his head to look down the rifle to take aim, indicating that the shooter was left-handed.
Not if he was describing a receding hairline which is similar on each side.
It is also of interest that Euins didn't see a scope on the rifle (neither did Brennan), even though he got a clear look at the shooter taking aim. One would assume the shooter was looking into the scope as he was aiming but there didn't appear to be a scope on the rifle.
Seeing a scope and noticing it are two different things. Brennan clarified his statement in his WC testimony. He simply did not notice a scope (but it could have had one and he just didn't take note of it) and therefore he does not know if the rifle had a scope or not. Typical of many details our human memories often don't remember correctly.
My point is that the evidence does not support the conclusion that "it couldn't have been LHO because of the descriptions of the shirt." Do I think that I know with certainty exactly what LHO was wearing? No, however the descriptions by the three witnesses who saw the man in the sniper's nest window fit the dingy white open-neck t-shirt LHO was arrested in quite well.
Edit: I just now noticed the Google AI answer you posted. I must have overlooked it thinking it was just another advertisement. Read the answer again. It is describing an open-collar shirt, not an open-neck shirt. There is a difference, the two different names basically say it without further information needed. Read the one I posted asking about whether or not an open-neck shirt needed to have a collar. It does not.
-
At the risk of my sanity, I skimmed this entire thread. It appears to be yet another example of what I call "Seinfeld Show" JFKA threads: The Thread About Nothing.
The simple fact is, the events of 11-22-1963 look precisely nothing like any real-world conspiracy, be it a professional hit or a Keystone Cops parody.
The events of 11-22-1963 look precisely like what we would expect if Oswald were the lone gunman.
It's really as simple as that.
All of the "oh, yeah, what about THIS?" and "oh. yeah, what about THAT?" CT speculation really just goes nowhere because it is impossible to turn the events of 11-22-1963 into anything resembling a plausible, real-world conspiracy to assassinate the President of the United States.
Anyone who doesn't see the humor in these discussions probably didn't get the underlying joke of the Seinfeld Show either.
-
The reliance on the SBT is what consistently DQ's the Lone Nut stuff. And now they have had to almost double the elapsed shooting time to 11+ seconds and even have Oswald firing a shot while standing up down through a 1/4 open window. The LN scenario continues being forced to change the parameters.
-
The reliance on the SBT is what consistently DQ's the Lone Nut stuff. And now they have had to almost double the elapsed shooting time to 11+ seconds and even have Oswald firing a shot while standing up down through a 1/4 open window. The LN scenario continues being forced to change the parameters.
The SBT is rock solid. As Dale Myers noted some years ago, the Single Bullet theory should really be known as the Single Bullet fact. I for one do not believe that the shooting span for the shots was 11+ seconds. That's not to say that I couldn't be convinced of it. I believe that the first shot was taken at about Z153. The CT scenario hasn't really changed much in the past 60 years. It's one that denies the real evidence and makes up and embraces bogus stuff.
-
The SBT is rock solid. As Dale Myers noted some years ago, the Single Bullet theory should really be known as the Single Bullet fact. I for one do not believe that the shooting span for the shots was 11+ seconds. That's not to say that I couldn't be convinced of it. I believe that the first shot was taken at about Z153. The CT scenario hasn't really changed much in the past 60 years. It's one that denies the real evidence and makes up and embraces bogus stuff.
The LN's have been forced into: (1) Extending the elapsed firing time to 11+ seconds, (2) Oswald firing Shot #1 from a Standing Position straight down through the 1/4 open window, (3) Then sitting down to fire shots #2 and #3, and (4) Moving the physical position of the JFK Limo on Elm St. And this, "SBT is rock solid"? The SBT has been proven "Impossible" by Knott Lab FORENSIC SCIENCE. Nothing science based has ever Proven the SBT. Back when the pandemic was running wild, all we ever heard was, "follow the science". Following Science also applies with respect to the SBT being declared "Impossible".
-
The LN's have been forced into: (1) Extending the elapsed firing time to 11+ seconds, (2) Oswald firing Shot #1 from a Standing Position straight down through the 1/4 open window, (3) Then sitting down to fire shots #2 and #3, and (4) Moving the physical position of the JFK Limo on Elm St.
Name the LNs who have been forced into : (1) Extending the elapsed firing time to 11+ seconds, (2) Oswald firing Shot #1 from a Standing Position straight down through the 1/4 open window, (3) Then sitting down to fire shots #2 and #3, and (4) Moving the physical position of the JFK Limo on Elm St.
And this, "SBT is rock solid"? The SBT has been proven "Impossible" by Knott Lab FORENSIC SCIENCE. Nothing science based has ever Proven the SBT. Back when the pandemic was running wild, all we ever heard was, "follow the science". Following Science also applies with respect to the SBT being declared "Impossible".
Where can one read the Knott study? Not a synopsis of the study or a video synopsis of it, but the actual full study itself. What generation copy, or copies, of the Zapruder film did they use? Did they use the Betzner and Willis photos? If so, what generation copies were they? How far inboard of JFK did they determine Connally to be? Did they factor in the right rotation of Connally when concluding that the SBT could not work? It seems that they did not. How do you defend that?
(https://i.imgur.com/7cY2DMX.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/s3jZf2l.png)
-
It’s already a sloppy job by one shooter, so if there’s some idea here that there’s another shooter because of a Knotts Lab study then that’ would be 2X as sloppy plan that makes no sense at all if Oswald is the being set up as a patsy. It’s an unnecessary complication introducing a different bullet that might hit JC and have be to replaced after the fact by more complication of swapping out the bullet and falsifying report of witnesses who saw a “pointed bullet”.
-
That “dingy white” T shirt Oswald had on when he was arrested means apparently he did not change that T shirt for a cleaner fresh T shirt when he changed out that lighter reddish brown shirt for the brown shirt with hole in the sleeve.
Seems to be another inconsistency imo because it only takes another 30 secs to take off the smelly dingy T shirt and put on a clean dry non dingy white T shirt while in the process of changing to the brown shirt.
Not sure how Arnold Rowland could see “blue” if Oswald was the rifle displaying person at the SW window if Oswald was wearing a reddish brown shirt. Was Rowland colorblind?
-
Name the LNs who have been forced into : (1) Extending the elapsed firing time to 11+ seconds, (2) Oswald firing Shot #1 from a Standing Position straight down through the 1/4 open window, (3) Then sitting down to fire shots #2 and #3, and (4) Moving the physical position of the JFK Limo on Elm St.
Where can one read the Knott study? Not a synopsis of the study or a video synopsis of it, but the actual full study itself. What generation copy, or copies, of the Zapruder film did they use? Did they use the Betzner and Willis photos? If so, what generation copies were they? How far inboard of JFK did they determine Connally to be? Did they factor in the right rotation of Connally when concluding that the SBT could not work? It seems that they did not. How do you defend that?
(https://i.imgur.com/7cY2DMX.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/s3jZf2l.png)
ALL of this moving of the goal posts is the Brainchild of Max Holland. LN's have been repeating since, "The Lost Bullet"
-
ALL of this moving of the goal posts is the Brainchild of Max Holland. LN's have been repeating since, "The Lost Bullet"
Have you read the Knott Lab study or not?
-
That “dingy white” T shirt Oswald had on when he was arrested means apparently he did not change that T shirt for a cleaner fresh T shirt when he changed out that lighter reddish brown shirt for the brown shirt with hole in the sleeve.
Seems to be another inconsistency imo because it only takes another 30 secs to take off the smelly dingy T shirt and put on a clean dry non dingy white T shirt while in the process of changing to the brown shirt.
Not sure how Arnold Rowland could see “blue” if Oswald was the rifle displaying person at the SW window if Oswald was wearing a reddish brown shirt. Was Rowland colorblind?
Oswald never changed any of his shirts.
-
Rowland specifically states the shirt had a collar and was unbuttoned. You might be free to ignore this bit I am not.
Again, I haven't ignored it. Rowland's sighting was at a different time and place. His description was not of a man in the sniper's nest window or at the time of the shooting. It is reasonable to believe the outer shirt could have been shed during the ~15-minute interval. I am not contesting what Rowland said he saw. But I do believe he substantially embellished his testimony for the WC. Therefore I simply discount the WC testimony as compared to what he said in his 11/22/63 affidavit.
In effect, he is confirming that the man he saw was wearing a collared shirt.
No, Brennan did not confirm or deny that. He simply indicated a lighter shade.
It is clear to anyone using common sense and being honest that these four eye-witnesses are not describing a white t-shirt. They are describing a very light coloured/white collared shirt open at the neck.
That is simply not true whatsoever. First of all, again, an open-neck shirt does not need to have a collar in order to be classified as an open-neck shirt (per Google AI). Secondly, Ronald Fischer said specifically that it could have been a t-shirt (see that portion of his testimony below).
Mr. FISCHER. And he had--he had on an open-neck shirt, but it-uh--could have been a sport shirt or a T-shirt. It was light in color; probably white, I couldn't tell whether it had long sleeves or whether it was a short-sleeved shirt, but it was open-neck and light in color.
Uh---he had a slender face and neck---uh---and he had a light complexion----he was a white man. And he looked to be 22 or 24 years old.
I believe your desperate attempt to argue that they are describing Oswald's brilliant white crew-neck t-shirt ...
LHO's t-shirt was worn out and a very dingy white (nowhere near as white as the shirts worn by the LEOs in the same properly exposed photos which I already posted earlier in this thread).
It is strong circumstantial evidence that the man on the 6th floor was not Oswald.
No, the descriptions fit LHO's dingy white, very open at the collar, t-shirt quite well. The fact that all three witnesses, who described the shirt on the man in the sniper's nest window, apparently independently came up with the open-neck aspect is important. Because the large amount of openness of LHO's t-shirt in the neck area is probably its most striking and noticeable feature. This, along with the rest of their descriptions, is strong evidence that they were describing LHO.
As is the passage of the Euins testimony you posted, that the shooter had a bald spot about "2 1/2 inches above where his hairline is" - meaning a bald spot on top of the man's head.
Male pattern baldness includes a receding hairline as we can see on LHO. I believe that Euins was probably pointing to one of the areas on his head comparable to where LHO's hairline had already receded substantially. Overall Euins' testimony lacks details, so I have to discount his description substantially anyway.
This bald spot could only be seen by Euins when the man tilted his head to look down the rifle to take aim, indicating that the shooter was left-handed.
Not if he was describing a receding hairline which is similar on each side.
It is also of interest that Euins didn't see a scope on the rifle (neither did Brennan), even though he got a clear look at the shooter taking aim. One would assume the shooter was looking into the scope as he was aiming but there didn't appear to be a scope on the rifle.
Seeing a scope and noticing it are two different things. Brennan clarified his statement in his WC testimony. He simply did not notice a scope (but it could have had one and he just didn't take note of it) and therefore he does not know if the rifle had a scope or not. Typical of many details our human memories often don't remember correctly.
My point is that the evidence does not support the conclusion that "it couldn't have been LHO because of the descriptions of the shirt." Do I think that I know with certainty exactly what LHO was wearing? No, however the descriptions by the three witnesses who saw the man in the sniper's nest window fit the dingy white open-neck t-shirt LHO was arrested in quite well.
Edit: I just now noticed the Google AI answer you posted. I must have overlooked it thinking it was just another advertisement. Read the answer again. It is describing an open-collar shirt, not an open-neck shirt. There is a difference, the two different names basically say it without further information needed. Read the one I posted asking about whether or not an open-neck shirt needed to have a collar. It does not.
"Edit: I just now noticed the Google AI answer you posted...It is describing an open-collar shirt, not an open-neck shirt. There is a difference, the two different names basically say it without further information needed..."
Look at the image again, Charles, and all will be revealed:
(https://i.postimg.cc/9Ms1TLj2/open-neckedshirt-AI.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Rather than ask a silly, loaded question I asked the question that is at the heart of the discussion we are having - "What is an open-necked shirt?"
Google AI automatically responded with an explanation of an open collar shirt.
As far as Google AI is concerned, an open-necked shirt is an open collar shirt. They are the same thing. Which is what I've been arguing from the beginning.
When I Google "open-necked shirt", of the first 100 images I see 99 have a collar and the vast majority have buttons.
When a person refers to an open-necked shirt they are referring to a shirt with a collar.
I know you don't accept this but it is the case.
Rowland's affidavit refers to a shirt "open at the neck". In his WC testimony he expands on this stating that it is an unbuttoned shirt, open at the collar.
When Brennan is asked to identify one of Oswald's shirts that has a collar and buttons, he doesn't say that he saw a t-shirt, the only difference he notes is that the shirt he saw was a lighter colour.
When Fischer concedes the possibility that the open necked shirt he saw might have been a sport shirt or a t-shirt, he is differentiating between the three garments. He is confirming that the open-necked shirt he is talking about is NOT a t-shirt:
"Mr. BELIN - The statement here says that he was light-headed and that he had on an open-neck shirt. Did he have an open-neck shirt on?
Mr. FISCHER - Yes.”
The evidence is over-whelming that these four eye-witnesses are talking about a regular buttoned shirt open at the collar. All four describe the shirt as being very light in colour. Oswald was not wearing such a garment that day and did not have one in his possession.
This is incredibly strong circumstantial evidence that the man on the 6th floor was not Lee Harvey Oswald.
I understand why you are trying to argue otherwise - you realise the importance of this evidence and how it implicates someone other than Oswald as the shooter. Bill Chapman and John Mytton also realised the importance of it but it never crossed their minds to argue that the shirt these men were describing was a t-shirt. They understood that the witnesses were referring to a collared shirt. Unfortunately, the only argument they could come up with - that all colours turn white in daylight - is so ridiculous that it makes the Jet Effect look sane.
There are certain LNers who don't realise the importance of this evidence but they are of little consequence.
My opinion, that these four men are describing a shirt that wasn't worn by Oswald - has been strengthened by our debate as I'm sure yours has. I think we should let others make their own minds up about the arguments we have put forward.
As is the passage of the Euins testimony you posted, that the shooter had a bald spot about "2 1/2 inches above where his hairline is" - meaning a bald spot on top of the man's head.
Male pattern baldness includes a receding hairline as we can see on LHO. I believe that Euins was probably pointing to one of the areas on his head comparable to where LHO's hairline had already receded substantially.
This brings us to more circumstantial evidence that the shooter was not Oswald.
Euins mentions again and again a bald spot on the shooter's head. Oswald had no such bald spot.
I don't think that you should be deciding what the witness meant to say. A bald spot is not a receding hairline, they are different things. Take his testimony at face value, the shooter had a bald spot on his head. If he had a receding hairline, Euins would have said so.
But here's a more important point - if the shooter had a receding hairline, one of the other witnesses would have mentioned it.
(https://i.postimg.cc/sg0L1JNs/Oswaldreceding.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Oswald certainly had a receding hairline and it was more prominent on the left side of his head. This is the side that would have been exposed to all five witnesses. It is a really prominent feature and, although all five witnesses had something to say about the shooter's hair, not a single one noticed this most prominent feature. In fact, Rowland specifically stated that the shooter did not have a receding hairline. It must surely be the case that the shooter did not have a receding hairline and, therefore, was not Oswald.
The bald spot Euins noticed can, in no way, be equated with a receding hairline. It makes no sense as they are completely different things. Trying to change what Euins actually said to what he 'meant to say' is really desperate.
When asked where the bald spot was located Euins indicated an area inches "above" his hairline. A face value interpretation of this indicates that the bald spot was on top of the shooter's head. Along with no-one else mentioning a receding hairline and Rowland stating that the shooter did not have a receding hairline, we can take Euins observation of a bald spot on the man's head at face value.
More circumstantial evidence that the shooter wasn't Oswald.
It is interesting to note that Euins could only see the bald spot when the man tilted his head to look down the rifle when taking aim. This can only mean that the shooter tilted his head to the left which would only be done by a left-handed shooter.
Again, more circumstantial evidence that the shooter was not the right-handed Oswald.
That Euins could see the man's hand on the trigger housing also suggests the shooter was left-handed.
It is also of interest that Euins notices the man tilting his head to take aim down the rifle but doesn't see the shooter looking through a scope. It's possible it may have escaped his attention but it also escaped Brennan's attention. Taken at face value, this suggests that the rifle used during the assassination did not have a scope, again suggesting the shooter was not Oswald.
Euins knew a thing or two about rifles as he had been in the ROTC and he displayed some of this knowledge during his testimony:
Mr. SPECTER. How far was it sticking out of the window would you say then, Amos?
Mr. EUINS. I would say it was about something like that.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating about 3 feet?
Mr. EUINS. You know-the trigger housing and stock and receiver group out the window.
Mr. SPECTER. I can’t understand you, Amos.
Mr. EUINS. It was enough to get the stock and receiving house and the trigger housing to stick out the window.
Mr. SPECTER. The stock and receiving house?
Mr. EUINS. Yes.
Euins saw most of the rifle and could described different parts of it so he must've had a good look at it but he didn't see a scope. This might be just an overlooked detail on it's own but it is interesting that the only other witness to see the man actually using the rifle also didn't notice a scope.
Taking the eye-witness statements at face value we have a light coloured/white buttoned shirt, open at the collar. A distinctive bald spot on top of his head. No receding hairline. A rifle without a scope. And a potentially left-handed shooter.
ALL of this circumstantial evidence points away from Oswald being the shooter.
-
At the risk of my sanity, I skimmed this entire thread. It appears to be yet another example of what I call "Seinfeld Show" JFKA threads: The Thread About Nothing.
The simple fact is, the events of 11-22-1963 look precisely nothing like any real-world conspiracy, be it a professional hit or a Keystone Cops parody.
The events of 11-22-1963 look precisely like what we would expect if Oswald were the lone gunman.
It's really as simple as that.
All of the "oh, yeah, what about THIS?" and "oh. yeah, what about THAT?" CT speculation really just goes nowhere because it is impossible to turn the events of 11-22-1963 into anything resembling a plausible, real-world conspiracy to assassinate the President of the United States.
Anyone who doesn't see the humor in these discussions probably didn't get the underlying joke of the Seinfeld Show either.
So.........if it was just Oswald - why the so obvious and blatant cover-up?
-
So.........if it was just Oswald - why the so obvious and blatant cover-up?
That's quite simple, and I believe Larry Hancock nailed it long ago. In hindsight, Oswald should have been under intense scrutiny - but he wasn't. The CIA, FBI, SS, DPD and others rightfully had egg on their faces. A CYA cover-up was inevitable. Not covering up an assassination conspiracy but covering up their own malfeasance, sometimes one agency at the expense of others. This was one of my great JFKA epiphanies when I first read one of Larry's books - i.e., the assassination and the cover-up were two distinct and separate things; the cover-up was not covering up an assassination conspiracy.
This dovetails with the scholarly book I mentioned (the title escapes me) that examined the wildest conspiracy theories over the past 100 years. In EVERY case, there was actual malfeasance and actual attempts at covering it up. This provided fodder for wild conspiracy theories that were completely wrong and had nothing to do with the actual malfeasance and cover-up. If the bad actors had simply been transparent and fessed up - which, I realize, is contrary to the bureaucratic mindset - the conspiracy theories would never have gotten started.
-
It’s already a sloppy job by one shooter, so if there’s some idea here that there’s another shooter because of a Knotts Lab study then that’ would be 2X as sloppy plan that makes no sense at all if Oswald is the being set up as a patsy. It’s an unnecessary complication introducing a different bullet that might hit JC and have be to replaced after the fact by more complication of swapping out the bullet and falsifying report of witnesses who saw a “pointed bullet”.
It sounds like you're making the same point I am. The JFKA was sloppy and amateurish (albeit successful) because it was a last-minute project by a guy who had to make do with what he had available to him. A sloppy and amateurish Presidential assassination conspiracy makes no sense (unless, I suppose, Oswald enlisted a helper no more prepared than he was, which is not the sort of conspiracy CTers want to hear about). I have phrased this in the past as the supposed conspirators being diabolical geniuses half the time and fumbling stooges the other half, unnecessarily complicating the operation, taking insane risks and leaving 4000 clues for CTers to salivate over; this just isn't realistic or plausible. The core problem is that no professional assassination conspiracy would look anything like Dealey Plaza; CTers are stuck with this scene of the crime and thus have to build their ad hoc theorizing around it. Folks like Dan who want to obsess over details lose sight of the fact that none of it makes any sense. It was "sloppy and amateurish" for a Presidential assassination conspiracy because it wasn't a conspiracy at all.
-
I believe that Assassin(s) Entry and Exit from the TSBD was done via the Huge Gates that were attached to the side of the TSBD along the Elm St. Extension. Officer Luke Mooney gave WC Testimony regarding his walking through these "Wide Open" gates, about 5-6 minutes after the Kill Shot. Mooney then entered the TSBD 1st floor in very close proximity to the stairwell and freight elevators. These gates were "wide open" on the Towner Film prior to the Kill Shot, and are still "Wide Open" after the Kill Shot, (Couch Film). (The gates opened Inward). After walking through the Huge Gates, Officer Mooney testified as to closing them. His closing of these gates would be at about 6-7 minutes after the Kill Shot. (The gates can be seen to be closed on the Martin Film as Amos Euins is filmed on the back of the Officer Harkin's 3 wheel motorcycle racing down the Elm St Ext). The assassin(s) could have easily walked through the "wide open" Huge Gates shortly before shots were fired. They then entered the TSBD 1st Floor and immediately walked up the close by stairwell to the 6th floor. They exited the TSBD in reverse manner and simply mixed into the stunned eyewitnesses outside of the TSBD.
You believe? Historically belief is something one has in the absence of any evidence whatsoever. You never, ever fail to disappoint. Laughable.
-
It sounds like you're making the same point I am. The JFKA was sloppy and amateurish (albeit successful) because it was a last-minute project by a guy who had to make do with what he had available to him. A sloppy and amateurish Presidential assassination conspiracy makes no sense (unless, I suppose, Oswald enlisted a helper no more prepared than he was, which is not the sort of conspiracy CTers want to hear about). I have phrased this in the past as the supposed conspirators being diabolical geniuses half the time and fumbling stooges the other half, unnecessarily complicating the operation, taking insane risks and leaving 4000 clues for CTers to salivate over; this just isn't realistic or plausible. The core problem is that no professional assassination conspiracy would look anything like Dealey Plaza; CTers are stuck with this scene of the crime and thus have to build their ad hoc theorizing around it. Folks like Dan who want to obsess over details lose sight of the fact that none of it makes any sense. It was "sloppy and amateurish" for a Presidential assassination conspiracy because it wasn't a conspiracy at all.
"Folks like Dan who want to obsess over details lose sight of the fact that none of it makes any sense. It was "sloppy and amateurish" for a Presidential assassination conspiracy because it was a conspiracy at all."
And folks like you are zealots - impervious to reason or argument.
Someone else has done your thinking for you.
Someone else has provided you with the opinions you defend so zealously.
Even this notion, that the assassination was sloppy and amateurish, which you have jumped on so enthusiastically, has been provided for you by someone else - by me, in fact.
Have a quick look at the name of the person who created this thread and who has been putting forward arguments demonstrating that the assassination was, indeed, a sloppy and amateurish event. Even though it supports the LNer narrative of Oswald the Lone Nutter! Can you even imagine such a thing, presenting an argument that supports someone else's theory (and let's not forget, the notion that Oswald took the shots is just a theory).
In the latter part of this thread I have been 'obsessing' over details such as four eye-witnesses describing the man on the 6th floor wearing clothes that Oswald didn't wear to work that day and didn't have in his possession at the time of his arrest.
This is very strong circumstantial evidence that the shooter wasn't Oswald.
Anyone who can brush this off as a "detail" has a very poor grasp of non-zealous traits such as reason, logic and common sense.
As a zealot, you can fall back on your own patented logic - the man on the 6th floor was wearing the same clothes as Oswald because the man on the 6th floor was Oswald!
Part of your delusion appears to be that you truly believe your opinion is a fact - that you can just think a thing and that's the way it is.
Try and join in a debate rather than just blindly regurgitate your 'provided' opinion.
-
It sounds like you're making the same point I am. The JFKA was sloppy and amateurish (albeit successful) because it was a last-minute project by a guy who had to make do with what he had available to him. A sloppy and amateurish Presidential assassination conspiracy makes no sense (unless, I suppose, Oswald enlisted a helper no more prepared than he was, which is not the sort of conspiracy CTers want to hear about). I have phrased this in the past as the supposed conspirators being diabolical geniuses half the time and fumbling stooges the other half, unnecessarily complicating the operation, taking insane risks and leaving 4000 clues for CTers to salivate over; this just isn't realistic or plausible. The core problem is that no professional assassination conspiracy would look anything like Dealey Plaza; CTers are stuck with this scene of the crime and thus have to build their ad hoc theorizing around it. Folks like Dan who want to obsess over details lose sight of the fact that none of it makes any sense. It was "sloppy and amateurish" for a Presidential assassination conspiracy because it wasn't a conspiracy at all.
I believe it is far easier for 1 Shooter to accomplish a smooth operation vs 2 or 3 shooters. The more variables involved means the more complex the equation becomes. Anybody thinking that the assassination was "sloppy and amateurish" is endorsing a Conspiracy. Know it or not.
-
"Folks like Dan who want to obsess over details lose sight of the fact that none of it makes any sense. It was "sloppy and amateurish" for a Presidential assassination conspiracy because it was a conspiracy at all."
And folks like you are zealots - impervious to reason or argument.
Someone else has done your thinking for you.
Someone else has provided you with the opinions you defend so zealously.
Even this notion, that the assassination was sloppy and amateurish, which you have jumped on so enthusiastically, has been provided for you by someone else - by me, in fact.
Have a quick look at the name of the person who created this thread and who has been putting forward arguments demonstrating that the assassination was, indeed, a sloppy and amateurish event. Even though it supports the LNer narrative of Oswald the Lone Nutter! Can you even imagine such a thing, presenting an argument that supports someone else's theory (and let's not forget, the notion that Oswald took the shots is just a theory).
In the latter part of this thread I have been 'obsessing' over details such as four eye-witnesses describing the man on the 6th floor wearing clothes that Oswald didn't wear to work that day and didn't have in his possession at the time of his arrest.
This is very strong circumstantial evidence that the shooter wasn't Oswald.
Anyone who can brush this off as a "detail" has a very poor grasp of non-zealous traits such as reason, logic and common sense.
As a zealot, you can fall back on your own patented logic - the man on the 6th floor was wearing the same clothes as Oswald because the man on the 6th floor was Oswald!
Part of your delusion appears to be that you truly believe your opinion is a fact - that you can just think a thing and that's the way it is.
Try and join in a debate rather than just blindly regurgitate your 'provided' opinion.
A few weeks ago, you were arguing for a tight, financially and politically motivated conspiracy involving LBJ, Byrd, Cason, Shelley and a professional hitman in the TSBD. Now it's still a conspiracy but the Three Stooges were the conspirators. Well, I suppose a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, as Ralph Waldo Emerson said. I'll have to admit, I am indeed "impervious" to your sort of theorizing. Show me a genuinely plausible, evidence-based theory and I'll listen - and perhaps even be convinced. "That wasn't Oswald the witnesses saw in the TSBD window!!" doesn't move the needle.
No, others don't do my thinking for me. I have supreme confidence in my intellect and critical-thinking skills. That's precisely how and why I morphed from an enthusiastic CTer to a provisional LNer. The trouble is, when someone is not a whacked-out LN zealot but likewise not a whacked-out CT zealot, whacked-out CT zealots like you don't know what to do with him - so you label him an LN zealot, the truth be damned. Like almost everything else JFKA-related, it's fundamentally humorous.
Well, I suppose in the broadest sense the LN narrative is "just a theory" and every CT narrative is "just a theory." What actually occurred cannot be known to a level of ontological certainty. Maybe Hickey actually did trip over his shoelaces and accidentally shoot JFK with his AR-15. In the same sense, a spherical earth and a flat earth are both "just" theories. But the spherical earth and flat earth "theories" are scarcely equivalent. One is supported by evidence and logic to the extent that it is regarded as a scientific "truth," while the other is regarded as silly and those who believe it are regarded as lacking in basic reasoning skills.
You seem to fail to appreciate the distinction, at least insofar as JFKA-related theories are concerned.
-
I believe it is far easier for 1 Shooter to accomplish a smooth operation vs 2 or 3 shooters. The more variables involved means the more complex the equation becomes. Anybody thinking that the assassination was "sloppy and amateurish" is endorsing a Conspiracy. Know it or not.
That's not true if the one shooter is Oswald, who conceives of his plan perhaps 24-36 hours in advance, has to bum a ride to retrieve his clunky Carcano, must assemble the rifle and fashion a sniper's nest during the lunch hour at his place of employment, has no plan of escape, etc., etc. Given Oswald as the assassin, the operation could not be anything other than seat-of-his-pants sloppy and amateurish. Do you actually think the LN narrative describes an assassination that was organized and professional?
-
That's not true if the one shooter is Oswald, who conceives of his plan perhaps 24-36 hours in advance, has to bum a ride to retrieve his clunky Carcano, must assemble the rifle and fashion a sniper's nest during the lunch hour at his place of employment, has no plan of escape, etc., etc. Given Oswald as the assassin, the operation could not be anything other than seat-of-his-pants sloppy and amateurish. Do you actually think the LN narrative describes an assassination that was organized and professional?
24-36 hrs in advance? Phony ID, PO Box mailing address, mail order rifle. Whether solo or in concert, this was planned out in advance. The Amateur Hour here starred the JFK Assassination Research Community. They should have buttoned up a lot of the still unanswered questions while the main players were still alive.
-
24-36 hrs in advance? Phony ID, PO Box mailing address, mail order rifle. Whether solo or in concert, this was planned out in advance. The Amateur Hour here starred the JFK Assassination Research Community. They should have buttoned up a lot of the still unanswered questions while the main players were still alive.
Storing,
It may be that Oswald's attempted assassination of General Walker was planned far-in-advance, and that his successful assassination of JFK was a spur-of-the-moment kinda thing.
D'oh
-
A few weeks ago, you were arguing for a tight, financially and politically motivated conspiracy involving LBJ, Byrd, Cason, Shelley and a professional hitman in the TSBD. Now it's still a conspiracy but the Three Stooges were the conspirators. Well, I suppose a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, as Ralph Waldo Emerson said. I'll have to admit, I am indeed "impervious" to your sort of theorizing. Show me a genuinely plausible, evidence-based theory and I'll listen - and perhaps even be convinced. "That wasn't Oswald the witnesses saw in the TSBD window!!" doesn't move the needle.
No, others don't do my thinking for me. I have supreme confidence in my intellect and critical-thinking skills. That's precisely how and why I morphed from an enthusiastic CTer to a provisional LNer. The trouble is, when someone is not a whacked-out LN zealot but likewise not a whacked-out CT zealot, whacked-out CT zealots like you don't know what to do with him - so you label him an LN zealot, the truth be damned. Like almost everything else JFKA-related, it's fundamentally humorous.
Well, I suppose in the broadest sense the LN narrative is "just a theory" and every CT narrative is "just a theory." What actually occurred cannot be known to a level of ontological certainty. Maybe Hickey actually did trip over his shoelaces and accidentally shoot JFK with his AR-15. In the same sense, a spherical earth and a flat earth are both "just" theories. But the spherical earth and flat earth "theories" are scarcely equivalent. One is supported by evidence and logic to the extent that it is regarded as a scientific "truth," while the other is regarded as silly and those who believe it are regarded as lacking in basic reasoning skills.
You seem to fail to appreciate the distinction, at least insofar as JFKA-related theories are concerned.
Yet another post devoid of content.
"Show me a genuinely plausible, evidence-based theory and I'll listen..."
:D :D :D
You may be deluded but at least you're funny
"That wasn't Oswald the witnesses saw in the TSBD window!!"
This is exactly the kind of deluded argument you specialise in. A deluded pronouncement with no evidence to back it up.
As I say, part of your delusion appears to be that you believe your opinion is a fact, so when you make these baseless pronouncements you really believe you're making some kind of genuine contribution.
On the other hand, in this thread I've presented a large amount of testimony which, when taken at face value, can only realistically be interpreted as strong circumstantial evidence that the man on the 6th floor was not Oswald. Of course, it hasn't crossed your deluded mind to address actual evidence.
Well, I suppose in the broadest sense the LN narrative is "just a theory"...
You don't need to "suppose" anything.
You're notion, that Oswald took the shots, is a theory. That is a fact. No supposing required.
Like all zealots, you find this obvious truth a little difficult to swallow.
-
Yet another post devoid of content.
"Show me a genuinely plausible, evidence-based theory and I'll listen..."
:D :D :D
You may be deluded but at least you're funny
"That wasn't Oswald the witnesses saw in the TSBD window!!"
This is exactly the kind of deluded argument you specialise in. A deluded pronouncement with no evidence to back it up.
As I say, part of your delusion appears to be that you believe your opinion is a fact, so when you make these baseless pronouncements you really believe you're making some kind of genuine contribution.
On the other hand, in this thread I've presented a large amount of testimony which, when taken at face value, can only realistically be interpreted as strong circumstantial evidence that the man on the 6th floor was not Oswald. Of course, it hasn't crossed your deluded mind to address actual evidence.
Well, I suppose in the broadest sense the LN narrative is "just a theory"...
You don't need to "suppose" anything.
You're notion, that Oswald took the shots, is a theory. That is a fact. No supposing required.
Like all zealots, you find this obvious truth a little difficult to swallow.
Wow, four "deluded" and one "delusional" in a single short post! This may be my new personal best. Does the phrase "Methinks thou doth protest too much" ring a bell? (Hamlet, although Slick Willie used to say to Hillary fairly often.)
Yes, Our Man Dan actually does regard all theories as fungible. Spherical earth, flat earth - well, who can really say?
You have presented testimony that, in a vacuum, could be interpreted as suggesting Someone Other Than Oswald was on the sixth floor. Even when that testimony is viewed in a vacuum, most critical thinkers would not and do not agree that this is the most reasonable interpretation.
Moreover, this testimony cannot be viewed in a vacuum. It must be viewed in the context of (1) a veritable mountain of evidence suggesting rather strongly that Oswald was on the sixth floor firing his trust Carcano; (2) a complete absence of evidence (other than the testimony you interpret in this manner) that anyone else was on the sixth floor; and (3) the insurmountable logical and logistical problems associated with Oswald being in the TSBD while his trusty Carcano and Someone Other Than Him were on the sixth floor.
You are, in essence, a JFKA Flat Earther. "Methinks thou art sorely lacking in ye olde critical thinking skills." (Little Old Lance, not Hamlet or Slick Willie.)
-
Because I am a Serious and Dedicated Researcher who is housebound with an Achilles problem, I have now reviewed this entire thread and given due consideration to Dan’s evidential arguments relating to Someone Other Than Oswald being the sixth-floor gunman. Dan is a classic example of what I described in my fabled thread at the Ed Forum, “A Beginner’s Guide to the Conspiracy Game.”
In the Conspiracy Game, eyewitness testimony is the best of all evidence – quite the opposite of what lawyers and forensic folks know to be true. If three eyewitnesses describe the getaway car as being “dark gray,” “almost black” and “maroon” – well, by God, in the Conspiracy Game there were three cars and what might seem on the surface to be a routine bank robbery was in fact a multi-faceted conspiracy. Don’t try to reconcile those three accounts, pal – the eyewitnesses know what they saw, they saw three cars, and eyewitnesses are never wrong if what they say supports a conspiracy.
Charles has politely and thoroughly refuted Dan's arguments. I merely added that Dan blithely ignores the massive factual and logical issues raised by Someone Other Than Oswald being the gunman. Dan is either just playing the Conspiracy Game because he enjoys a feisty debate or is, alas, really a JFKA Flat Earther as I’ve suggested.
Because I am Serious and Dedicated Researcher, I reviewed the affidavits and testimonies of all the relevant witnesses. Of those who actually saw someone in the southeast sixth-floor window, a couple (Edwards and Fischer) describe Oswald about as accurately as could be expected; no one describes someone who flatly could not be Oswald. Jarman said Oswald typically worked in his t-shirt, and it’s probable Oswald would have preferred to do his shooting in a t-shirt rather than a long-sleeved overshirt. When we consider that the guy in the sniper’s nest was scarcely the star attraction and no one paid attention to him for more than a period of seconds, the eyewitness testimony is quite compelling. (In the context of all the other evidence, it’s merely icing on the cake – but we’re charitably ignoring this reality in order to meet Dan on his own Conspiracy Game terms.)
The outlier is Arnold Rowland, 18-year-old high school student and part-time pizza guy (no slur intended – my first job was delivering pizzas) with a 99.9th percentile IQ of 147 (or so he said). His “man with a rifle” was standing several feet back from the window AT THE OTHER (SOUTHWEST) END OF THE BUILDING. This was the open area where the flooring work was being done, which is why the boxes were conveniently (for Oswald) stacked at the east end. Can we be sure that the guy was actually holding a rifle at all? Do we have any reason to think it was Oswald? Why would Oswald be there? On the other hand, can we be sure it wasn’t Oswald, prior to removing his overshirt?
THERE IS NO DOUBT, screams Dan. It was Someone Other Than Oswald with a rifle. Eyewitnesses are never wrong. This was a man with a rifle in a blue or light-colored overshirt who could not have been Oswald. (Never mind that the rest of Rowland’s description is pretty close – white, slender, 140 to 150 pounds, possibly early thirties. Never mind that Barbara Rowland testified that her husband was “prone to exaggerate.”)
In his 11-22-63 statement to the Sheriff’s Department, Rowland had said “This man appeared to be a white man and appeared to have a light-colored shirt on, open at the neck. He appeared to be of slender build and appeared to have dark hair.” In his 11-22-63 interview with the FBI, he had described “a white male of slender build and appeared to have dark hair. He appeared to have on a light-colored shirt, open at the neck.” In a phone call with the FBI the next day, he had said "he was looking around at the buildings and observed an unknown male wearing a light-colored shirt [but] was not close enough to identify the person he saw and cannot say if it was or was not Lee Harvey Oswald.” In his 11-24-63 statement to the FBI, the man he saw “appeared to be slender in proportion to his height, was wearing a white or light-colored shirt, either collarless or open at the neck. He appeared to have dark hair ... I would not be able to identify the person I saw due to the distance involved.”
Nothing about an overshirt. Just a white or light-colored shirt, collarless or open at the neck. What is the most prominent aspect of a V-neck t-shirt? It shows more neck than any other type of shirt. Duh.
Before he saw the man with the rifle in the SOUTHWEST window, Rowland saw a man hanging out the SOUTHEAST sixth-floor window. This was a very thin, elderly, bald Negro in a very bright plaid shirt who disappeared when Rowland looked again. He is obviously mistaken about this – surely it was one of the Norman/Jarman/Williams trio on the fifth floor or some other TSBD employee – BUT NOT ABOUT THE GUY WITH THE RIFLE.
This is not to pretend there are no discrepancies. Baker described encountering Oswald in the lunchroom in what sounds like the overshirt. Mrs. Reid later encountered him in the V-neck t-shirt. God knows what was actually going on, but it is simply absurd to pretend, as Dan does, that Rowland establishes Someone Other Than Oswald on the sixth floor (let alone the sniper’s nest) or that the “discrepancies” in the fleeting eyewitness accounts are anything other than what we would expect from eyewitnesses in these circumstances. As CTers are wont to do, Dan cherry-picks whatever fits a CT perspective, ignores everything that doesn’t, and further ignores that what he says Makes No Sense in the context of the JFKA as a whole.
FWIW, here is Rowland’s marked-up CE 356:
(https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0488b.jpg)
-
I’m running out of alternative scenarios for a conspirator shooter other than Oswald if the premise is that this was a sloppy assassination.
I think it’s reasonable to conclude that this shooting from the 72ft height SE corner window of TSBD at a moving small target below, with an extra variable of an ever changing vertical plane angle, is not what a typical professional shooter would choose as an ideal scenario, especially given the professional sniper creed: one shot one kill”.
But the reason I’m still on the fence that This sloppy 3 shots, 1 shot completely missing the limo , scenario fits Oswald like a glove, is because of the witnesses Dorothy Garner , Carolyn Arnold and Arnold Rowland.
Garner on the 4th floor, exited the 4th floor office door and had LOS to the rear staircase possibly as early as 30 secs post shots. She made statements of having followed Adams and Stiles “almost immediately” and that she was “right behind them” and that when she got over to stand near the west window by the staircase, she “HEARD THEM” going down the stairs.
I’d like to think that perhaps Garner was just mistaken about both her timing on following A&S and that what she heard when she got near the stairs was just the “ Noise” of an Oswald trampling down creaking wooden stairs.
But I don’t understand why Garner would state such a specific phrase as “I heard THEM” if it was just some creaking noise of wooden steps which she had heard. And to have missed seeing Oswald on the 4th floor landing, Garner would have had to wait at least 1 minute before following A&S, which seems to me quite longer than “immediately following” or “ right behind”.
( However, IDK if Garners perception of time was affected by the stress of the situation)
Then there’s Carolyn Arnold who stated she saw Oswald SEATED in the 2nd floor lunchroom at 12:15pm. There was a clock on the wall of the 2nd floor lunchroom and I’m not sure if anyone ever asked Carolyn if she actually saw the clock thus establishing her 12:15 sighting or if it was just Carolyn’s estimate which could be +/- 3 minutes. IDK even if the clock was in sync with the TSBD roof top clock.
But to further compound this confusion is Arnold Rowland able to see a rifle with a LARGE scope on it, from a distance of approx 250 ft away and while Rowland was looking upwards at the man standing with the “hunting” rifle “ at the ready” position 72 ft high up at a FULLY OPEN 6th floor SW corner window at 12:15, while Carolyn was supposedly seeing Oswald at 12:15 in the 2nd floor lunchroom.
Yet Euins and Brennan , observing a rifleman at the 6th floor SE corner window of TSBD, did NOT see any scope even though they both were only about 72ft away ( vertical angle distance looking upwards) Neither did Malcolm Couch nor Bob Jackson see any scope on the rifle which they both saw still sticking out the same SE window several seconds AFTER the last shot fired.
If this was some professional shooter then the only possibility that might be plausible to explain the exhibition of the rifle by the shooter both just before (12:15) and for several seconds after firing 3 shots (12:30) , was that it was intentional and meant to maximize probability that the general impression of majority of witness would be that the shots came from TSBD. The 3 shots, 2 hits and last shot fired high , a complete miss of the entire limo , and the shooter still displaying the rifle sticking it OUT the window for several seconds AFTER that 3rd shot fired (after Z313) high towards Tague at the Triple Underpass, all part of someone’s bizarre idea that this was necessary to complete the framing of Oswald.
-
Because I am a Serious and Dedicated Researcher who is housebound with an Achilles problem, I have now reviewed this entire thread and given due consideration to Dan’s evidential arguments relating to Someone Other Than Oswald being the sixth-floor gunman. Dan is a classic example of what I described in my fabled thread at the Ed Forum, “A Beginner’s Guide to the Conspiracy Game.”
In the Conspiracy Game, eyewitness testimony is the best of all evidence – quite the opposite of what lawyers and forensic folks know to be true. If three eyewitnesses describe the getaway car as being “dark gray,” “almost black” and “maroon” – well, by God, in the Conspiracy Game there were three cars and what might seem on the surface to be a routine bank robbery was in fact a multi-faceted conspiracy. Don’t try to reconcile those three accounts, pal – the eyewitnesses know what they saw, they saw three cars, and eyewitnesses are never wrong if what they say supports a conspiracy.
Charles has politely and thoroughly refuted Dan's arguments. I merely added that Dan blithely ignores the massive factual and logical issues raised by Someone Other Than Oswald being the gunman. Dan is either just playing the Conspiracy Game because he enjoys a feisty debate or is, alas, really a JFKA Flat Earther as I’ve suggested.
Because I am Serious and Dedicated Researcher, I reviewed the affidavits and testimonies of all the relevant witnesses. Of those who actually saw someone in the southeast sixth-floor window, a couple (Edwards and Fischer) describe Oswald about as accurately as could be expected; no one describes someone who flatly could not be Oswald. Jarman said Oswald typically worked in his t-shirt, and it’s probable Oswald would have preferred to do his shooting in a t-shirt rather than a long-sleeved overshirt. When we consider that the guy in the sniper’s nest was scarcely the star attraction and no one paid attention to him for more than a period of seconds, the eyewitness testimony is quite compelling. (In the context of all the other evidence, it’s merely icing on the cake – but we’re charitably ignoring this reality in order to meet Dan on his own Conspiracy Game terms.)
The outlier is Arnold Rowland, 18-year-old high school student and part-time pizza guy (no slur intended – my first job was delivering pizzas) with a 99.9th percentile IQ of 147 (or so he said). His “man with a rifle” was standing several feet back from the window AT THE OTHER (SOUTHWEST) END OF THE BUILDING. This was the open area where the flooring work was being done, which is why the boxes were conveniently (for Oswald) stacked at the east end. Can we be sure that the guy was actually holding a rifle at all? Do we have any reason to think it was Oswald? Why would Oswald be there? On the other hand, can we be sure it wasn’t Oswald, prior to removing his overshirt?
THERE IS NO DOUBT, screams Dan. It was Someone Other Than Oswald with a rifle. Eyewitnesses are never wrong. This was a man with a rifle in a blue or light-colored overshirt who could not have been Oswald. (Never mind that the rest of Rowland’s description is pretty close – white, slender, 140 to 150 pounds, possibly early thirties. Never mind that Barbara Rowland testified that her husband was “prone to exaggerate.”)
In his 11-22-63 statement to the Sheriff’s Department, Rowland had said “This man appeared to be a white man and appeared to have a light-colored shirt on, open at the neck. He appeared to be of slender build and appeared to have dark hair.” In his 11-22-63 interview with the FBI, he had described “a white male of slender build and appeared to have dark hair. He appeared to have on a light-colored shirt, open at the neck.” In a phone call with the FBI the next day, he had said "he was looking around at the buildings and observed an unknown male wearing a light-colored shirt [but] was not close enough to identify the person he saw and cannot say if it was or was not Lee Harvey Oswald.” In his 11-24-63 statement to the FBI, the man he saw “appeared to be slender in proportion to his height, was wearing a white or light-colored shirt, either collarless or open at the neck. He appeared to have dark hair ... I would not be able to identify the person I saw due to the distance involved.”
Nothing about an overshirt. Just a white or light-colored shirt, collarless or open at the neck. What is the most prominent aspect of a V-neck t-shirt? It shows more neck than any other type of shirt. Duh.
Before he saw the man with the rifle in the SOUTHWEST window, Rowland saw a man hanging out the SOUTHEAST sixth-floor window. This was a very thin, elderly, bald Negro in a very bright plaid shirt who disappeared when Rowland looked again. He is obviously mistaken about this – surely it was one of the Norman/Jarman/Williams trio on the fifth floor or some other TSBD employee – BUT NOT ABOUT THE GUY WITH THE RIFLE.
This is not to pretend there are no discrepancies. Baker described encountering Oswald in the lunchroom in what sounds like the overshirt. Mrs. Reid later encountered him in the V-neck t-shirt. God knows what was actually going on, but it is simply absurd to pretend, as Dan does, that Rowland establishes Someone Other Than Oswald on the sixth floor (let alone the sniper’s nest) or that the “discrepancies” in the fleeting eyewitness accounts are anything other than what we would expect from eyewitnesses in these circumstances. As CTers are wont to do, Dan cherry-picks whatever fits a CT perspective, ignores everything that doesn’t, and further ignores that what he says Makes No Sense in the context of the JFKA as a whole.
FWIW, here is Rowland’s marked-up CE 356:
(https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0488b.jpg)
"Because I am a Serious and Dedicated Researcher"
:D
The only thing Lance is Dedicated to are the findings of the Warren Commission Sham which he defends like the good, little Zealot he is.
Having dealt with him before I recognise a pattern emerging.
This last post has a familiar, slightly unhinged flavour, full of falsehoods (I don't like to use the word "Lies") and misrepresentation. His next couple of posts will be full-on ranting and, at some point after that, he will run away.
I will have to respond to Lance's post with two of my own. The first one will focus on correcting the more flagrant falsehoods and misrepresentations, the second one will deal with any evidence-based 'arguments' he puts forward :
"eyewitness testimony is the best of all evidence"
I have never had this approach to evidence.
When Lance attributes this to me it is not based on anything I've ever posted. He is basically making it up (Lying/Misrepresenting).
I have always contested, particularly in "The First Shot" thread, that eye-witness testimony is "secondary" to physical evidence, especially film/photographic evidence.
Take the Zapruder film, for example. If an eye-witness describes something that is not seen in the film it is obvious we must treat the film as 'primary' evidence in this instance.
However, there are occasions when we must consider witness testimony on its own merits and this is exactly what is happening when we are considering who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the shooting. There is no physical evidence telling us who was on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting so we must rely solely on eye-witness testimony.
Many Nutters have convinced themselves that, because Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th floor, it is proof Oswald was on the 6th floor during the shooting. It is not.
It is circumstantial evidence supporting the theory that Oswald took the shots. Nothing more.
There is no film/photographic evidence showing anyone identifiable on the 6th floor so we must rely on eye-witness testimony.
Lance should be aware of this.
When I consider the testimonial evidence regarding who was on the 6th floor around the time of the shooting, I interpret it in the most straight-forward, honest and common sense way I can. That is how I formed my opinion about the case.
Unlike Lance, who has had the Warren Commission do all his thinking for him, who has had all his opinions about the case provided for him, and who has swallowed down their findings hook, line and sinker.
"Charles has politely and thoroughly refuted Dan's arguments."
This has not happened and it is a great example of how Lance's Delusion blinds him.
I welcome anyone to have a look through the discussion me and Charles had in this thread and decide for themselves whether or not my arguments were refuted or strengthened.
The crux of the argument boils down to what does "open-neck shirt" mean.
It is my contention that this referred to a regular shirt with a collar and buttons whereas Charles argued that it referred to the t-shirt Oswald was wearing.
I did a very simple thing and Googled - "What is an open-necked shirt?" Google AI made it clear that this phrase was synonymous with an open collar shirt, a regular shirt with a collar and buttons, just as I was arguing.
I asked Charles to do a very simple thing (I ask Lance to do the same) - Google "open-neck shirt" and look at the Images it threw up.
When I did this, of the first 100 images displayed, only 1 was a t-shirt with no collar. The other 99 images were of a collared shirt with buttons.
The point I was making was that the most straight-forward, common sense interpretation of what the eye-witnesses were saying was that the shooter was wearing a very light coloured shirt with a collar and buttons, and that, if one accepted this common sense interpretation, it meant the shooter was wearing clothes that Oswald was not wearing. Lance's interpretation, that the witnesses were describing a white t-shirt, is a really strained interpretation, bordering on desperate, and clearly informed by his blind need to have Oswald as the shooter.
This is from REPLY#156:
"Look at the image again, Charles, and all will be revealed:
(https://i.postimg.cc/9Ms1TLj2/open-neckedshirt-AI.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Rather than ask a silly, loaded question I asked the question that is at the heart of the discussion we are having - "What is an open-necked shirt?"
Google AI automatically responded with an explanation of an open collar shirt.
As far as Google AI is concerned, an open-necked shirt is an open collar shirt. They are the same thing. Which is what I've been arguing from the beginning.
When I Google "open-necked shirt", of the first 100 images I see 99 have a collar and the vast majority have buttons.
When a person refers to an open-necked shirt they are referring to a shirt with a collar.
I know you don't accept this but it is the case.
Rowland's affidavit refers to a shirt "open at the neck". In his WC testimony he expands on this stating that it is an unbuttoned shirt, open at the collar.
When Brennan is asked to identify one of Oswald's shirts that has a collar and buttons, he doesn't say that he saw a t-shirt, the only difference he notes is that the shirt he saw was a lighter colour.
When Fischer concedes the possibility that the open necked shirt he saw might have been a sport shirt or a t-shirt, he is differentiating between the three garments. He is confirming that the open-necked shirt he is talking about is NOT a t-shirt:
"Mr. BELIN - The statement here says that he was light-headed and that he had on an open-neck shirt. Did he have an open-neck shirt on?
Mr. FISCHER - Yes.”
The evidence is over-whelming that these four eye-witnesses are talking about a regular buttoned shirt open at the collar. All four describe the shirt as being very light in colour. Oswald was not wearing such a garment that day and did not have one in his possession.
This is incredibly strong circumstantial evidence that the man on the 6th floor was not Lee Harvey Oswald.
I understand why you are trying to argue otherwise - you realise the importance of this evidence and how it implicates someone other than Oswald as the shooter. Bill Chapman and John Mytton also realised the importance of it but it never crossed their minds to argue that the shirt these men were describing was a t-shirt. They understood that the witnesses were referring to a collared shirt. Unfortunately, the only argument they could come up with - that all colours turn white in daylight - is so ridiculous that it makes the Jet Effect look sane.
There are certain LNers who don't realise the importance of this evidence but they are of little consequence."
"THERE IS NO DOUBT, screams Dan. It was Someone Other Than Oswald with a rifle. Eyewitnesses are never wrong."
This is a good example of the slightly unhinged tone Lance's posts start to take on after a while.
It is usually followed by a full-on breakdown.
Just for the record, this is what I actually posted about the eye-witness testimony concerning what the shooter was wearing - "It is strong circumstantial evidence that the man on the 6th floor was not Oswald."
Eye-witnesses describing the shooter wearing clothes Oswald wasn't wearing IS strong circumstantial evidence that the shooter wasn't Oswald and that's all it is. I am perfectly within my rights to make this extremely reasonable observation. It isn't proof of anything but it certainly must inform a persons opinion.
Lance's slightly unhinged statements actually reflect his own approach to this case.
"I merely added that Dan blithely ignores the massive factual and logical issues raised by Someone Other Than Oswald being the gunman"
This is just a lie...sorry...a falsehood.
There's no need to get to involved with it.
I am more than willing to explore and debate every single piece of evidence regarding this issue.
It is such a hypocritical thing to post it's almost funny.
I will gladly debate Lance on any aspect of this case regarding who was on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting.
If there's one thing that's sure to make a blowhard disappear, it's having to actually back up their delusional beliefs.
"...a JFKA Flat Earther as I’ve suggested."
This is such a traditional Nutter strategy.
If you question the delusions of a Nutter like Lance then you also believe in UFO's, Bigfoot, Flat Earth etc.
It's a way of dismissing an argument before it even takes place.
Another favourite strategy is to lump all CTer's together, as if all conspiracy theories were actually one theory.
The truth is that there are many theories about the assassination of JFK (JFKA theories) and the Lone Nut theory is just one of these but Nutters don't seem to accept this truth (mainly because they don't accept that their own theory is actually a theory, they believe it's a fact). My own theory is my own theory arrived at through my own research and interpretation of the evidence and it is an on-going, developing theory but so often I'm expected by Nutters to answer for other conspiracy theories as if they were my own!
"...it is simply absurd to pretend, as Dan does, that Rowland establishes Someone Other Than Oswald on the sixth floor (let alone the sniper’s nest) or that the “discrepancies” in the fleeting eyewitness accounts are anything other than what we would expect from eyewitnesses in these circumstances."
I've never claimed anything remotely like this. It's more fabrication on Lance's behalf.
Rowland's observations do not 'establish' anything and eye-witness testimony is notoriously fallible.
Isn't it great that this Serious and Dedicated researcher just makes sh*t up and posts it as if he were some kind of oracle dispensing wisdom.
"Dan cherry-picks whatever fits a CT perspective, ignores everything that doesn’t, and further ignores that what he says Makes No Sense in the context of the JFKA as a whole."
More sh*t from the oracle.
But there is a point worth making.
There is a vast amount of evidence in this case and often it can be contradictory evidence.
No matter what theory we choose there will be evidence that contradicts it. We are all open to the charge of cherry-picking evidence that suits our theory but how can we not do that!
The very moment we have decided on a specific course in this case we are favouring some evidence over other evidence. This cannot be avoided. This doesn't mean we are cherry-picking or ignoring anything.
For Lance to imagine he is above all this speaks to the strength of his Delusion.
-
"Because I am a Serious and Dedicated Researcher"
:D
The only thing Lance is Dedicated to are the findings of the Warren Commission Sham which he defends like the good, little Zealot he is.
Having dealt with him before I recognise a pattern emerging.
This last post has a familiar, slightly unhinged flavour, full of falsehoods (I don't like to use the word "Lies") and misrepresentation. His next couple of posts will be full-on ranting and, at some point after that, he will run away.
I will have to respond to Lance's post with two of my own. The first one will focus on correcting the more flagrant falsehoods and misrepresentations, the second one will deal with any evidence-based 'arguments' he puts forward :
"eyewitness testimony is the best of all evidence"
I have never had this approach to evidence.
When Lance attributes this to me it is not based on anything I've ever posted. He is basically making it up (Lying/Misrepresenting).
I have always contested, particularly in "The First Shot" thread, that eye-witness testimony is "secondary" to physical evidence, especially film/photographic evidence.
Take the Zapruder film, for example. If an eye-witness describes something that is not seen in the film it is obvious we must treat the film as 'primary' evidence in this instance.
However, there are occasions when we must consider witness testimony on its own merits and this is exactly what is happening when we are considering who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the shooting. There is no physical evidence telling us who was on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting so we must rely solely on eye-witness testimony.
Many Nutters have convinced themselves that, because Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th floor, it is proof Oswald was on the 6th floor during the shooting. It is not.
It is circumstantial evidence supporting the theory that Oswald took the shots. Nothing more.
There is no film/photographic evidence showing anyone identifiable on the 6th floor so we must rely on eye-witness testimony.
Lance should be aware of this.
When I consider the testimonial evidence regarding who was on the 6th floor around the time of the shooting, I interpret it in the most straight-forward, honest and common sense way I can. That is how I formed my opinion about the case.
Unlike Lance, who has had the Warren Commission do all his thinking for him, who has had all his opinions about the case provided for him, and who has swallowed down their findings hook, line and sinker.
"Charles has politely and thoroughly refuted Dan's arguments."
This has not happened and it is a great example of how Lance's Delusion blinds him.
I welcome anyone to have a look through the discussion me and Charles had in this thread and decide for themselves whether or not my arguments were refuted or strengthened.
The crux of the argument boils down to what does "open-neck shirt" mean.
It is my contention that this referred to a regular shirt with a collar and buttons whereas Charles argued that it referred to the t-shirt Oswald was wearing.
I did a very simple thing and Googled - "What is an open-necked shirt?" Google AI made it clear that this phrase was synonymous with an open collar shirt, a regular shirt with a collar and buttons, just as I was arguing.
I asked Charles to do a very simple thing (I ask Lance to do the same) - Google "open-neck shirt" and look at the Images it threw up.
When I did this, of the first 100 images displayed, only 1 was a t-shirt with no collar. The other 99 images were of a collared shirt with buttons.
The point I was making was that the most straight-forward, common sense interpretation of what the eye-witnesses were saying was that the shooter was wearing a very light coloured shirt with a collar and buttons, and that, if one accepted this common sense interpretation, it meant the shooter was wearing clothes that Oswald was not wearing. Lance's interpretation, that the witnesses were describing a white t-shirt, is a really strained interpretation, bordering on desperate, and clearly informed by his blind need to have Oswald as the shooter.
This is from REPLY#156:
"Look at the image again, Charles, and all will be revealed:
(https://i.postimg.cc/9Ms1TLj2/open-neckedshirt-AI.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Rather than ask a silly, loaded question I asked the question that is at the heart of the discussion we are having - "What is an open-necked shirt?"
Google AI automatically responded with an explanation of an open collar shirt.
As far as Google AI is concerned, an open-necked shirt is an open collar shirt. They are the same thing. Which is what I've been arguing from the beginning.
When I Google "open-necked shirt", of the first 100 images I see 99 have a collar and the vast majority have buttons.
When a person refers to an open-necked shirt they are referring to a shirt with a collar.
I know you don't accept this but it is the case.
Rowland's affidavit refers to a shirt "open at the neck". In his WC testimony he expands on this stating that it is an unbuttoned shirt, open at the collar.
When Brennan is asked to identify one of Oswald's shirts that has a collar and buttons, he doesn't say that he saw a t-shirt, the only difference he notes is that the shirt he saw was a lighter colour.
When Fischer concedes the possibility that the open necked shirt he saw might have been a sport shirt or a t-shirt, he is differentiating between the three garments. He is confirming that the open-necked shirt he is talking about is NOT a t-shirt:
"Mr. BELIN - The statement here says that he was light-headed and that he had on an open-neck shirt. Did he have an open-neck shirt on?
Mr. FISCHER - Yes.”
The evidence is over-whelming that these four eye-witnesses are talking about a regular buttoned shirt open at the collar. All four describe the shirt as being very light in colour. Oswald was not wearing such a garment that day and did not have one in his possession.
This is incredibly strong circumstantial evidence that the man on the 6th floor was not Lee Harvey Oswald.
I understand why you are trying to argue otherwise - you realise the importance of this evidence and how it implicates someone other than Oswald as the shooter. Bill Chapman and John Mytton also realised the importance of it but it never crossed their minds to argue that the shirt these men were describing was a t-shirt. They understood that the witnesses were referring to a collared shirt. Unfortunately, the only argument they could come up with - that all colours turn white in daylight - is so ridiculous that it makes the Jet Effect look sane.
There are certain LNers who don't realise the importance of this evidence but they are of little consequence."
"THERE IS NO DOUBT, screams Dan. It was Someone Other Than Oswald with a rifle. Eyewitnesses are never wrong."
This is a good example of the slightly unhinged tone Lance's posts start to take on after a while.
It is usually followed by a full-on breakdown.
Just for the record, this is what I actually posted about the eye-witness testimony concerning what the shooter was wearing - "It is strong circumstantial evidence that the man on the 6th floor was not Oswald."
Eye-witnesses describing the shooter wearing clothes Oswald wasn't wearing IS strong circumstantial evidence that the shooter wasn't Oswald and that's all it is. I am perfectly within my rights to make this extremely reasonable observation. It isn't proof of anything but it certainly must inform a persons opinion.
Lance's slightly unhinged statements actually reflect his own approach to this case.
"I merely added that Dan blithely ignores the massive factual and logical issues raised by Someone Other Than Oswald being the gunman"
This is just a lie...sorry...a falsehood.
There's no need to get to involved with it.
I am more than willing to explore and debate every single piece of evidence regarding this issue.
It is such a hypocritical thing to post it's almost funny.
I will gladly debate Lance on any aspect of this case regarding who was on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting.
If there's one thing that's sure to make a blowhard disappear, it's having to actually back up their delusional beliefs.
"...a JFKA Flat Earther as I’ve suggested."
This is such a traditional Nutter strategy.
If you question the delusions of a Nutter like Lance then you also believe in UFO's, Bigfoot, Flat Earth etc.
It's a way of dismissing an argument before it even takes place.
Another favourite strategy is to lump all CTer's together, as if all conspiracy theories were actually one theory.
The truth is that there are many theories about the assassination of JFK (JFKA theories) and the Lone Nut theory is just one of these but Nutters don't seem to accept this truth (mainly because they don't accept that their own theory is actually a theory, they believe it's a fact). My own theory is my own theory arrived at through my own research and interpretation of the evidence and it is an on-going, developing theory but so often I'm expected by Nutters to answer for other conspiracy theories as if they were my own!
"...it is simply absurd to pretend, as Dan does, that Rowland establishes Someone Other Than Oswald on the sixth floor (let alone the sniper’s nest) or that the “discrepancies” in the fleeting eyewitness accounts are anything other than what we would expect from eyewitnesses in these circumstances."
I've never claimed anything remotely like this. It's more fabrication on Lance's behalf.
Rowland's observations do not 'establish' anything and eye-witness testimony is notoriously fallible.
Isn't it great that this Serious and Dedicated researcher just makes sh*t up and posts it as if he were some kind of oracle dispensing wisdom.
"Dan cherry-picks whatever fits a CT perspective, ignores everything that doesn’t, and further ignores that what he says Makes No Sense in the context of the JFKA as a whole."[/b]
More sh*t from the oracle.
But there is a point worth making.
There is a vast amount of evidence in this case and often it can be contradictory evidence.
No matter what theory we choose there will be evidence that contradicts it. We are all open to the charge of cherry-picking evidence that suits our theory but how can we not do that!
The very moment we have decided on a specific course in this case we are favouring some evidence over other evidence. This cannot be avoided. This doesn't mean we are cherry-picking or ignoring anything.
For Lance to imagine he is above all this speaks to the strength of his Delusion.
O'Meara,
You sound . . . . . triggered.
-
O'Meara,
You sound . . . . . triggered.
Run along Pinko, the adults are talking.
-
Run along Pinko, the adults are talking.
You're the one who's spewing the anti-CIA Kremlin line, dude.
-
Imagine if this was the standard in any other criminal case:
"There is no physical evidence telling us who was on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting so we must rely solely on eye-witness testimony.
Many Nutters have convinced themselves that, because Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th floor, it is proof Oswald was on the 6th floor during the shooting. It is not. It is circumstantial evidence supporting the theory that Oswald took the shots. Nothing more.
There is no film/photographic evidence showing anyone identifiable on the 6th floor so we must rely on eye-witness testimony."
Oswald's rifle is found at the scene of a shooting. It is found on the same floor from which several witnesses saw a rifle in the window at the moment of the assassination. Oswald's prints are the only ones found on that rifle. Its serial number links it to him. There is no evidence that his rifle was in the possession of any other person. His prints are also on the boxes in front of the window from which the shots were fired. His prints are also on a bag found next to the SN for which there is no other explanation other than being used to carry the rifle. Oswald has no credible alibi for the moment of the shooting. He lies about his ownership of the rifle, flees the crime scene and shoots a police officer. Oswald provides no explanation for the presence of his rifle on the 6th floor. In any other case, this would be considered conclusive of his guilt. Here we learn that there apparently is doubt because there is no film of Oswald committing the crime. If that is the standard, then it would be impossible to convict almost anyone of a crime because most criminals make some effort to conceal their involvement in a crime. Very few are dumb enough to allow themselves to be filmed committing a crime. All the more true in 1963 when there were fewer security cameras and fewer individuals with immediate access to a camera.
-
You guys need to realize that You LOSE the Jury when you go "War and Peace" to get your point(s) across. Think your position(s) through and then repeat that same process. No matter how fervent your opinion on a subject might be, you gotta consider the "reading" attention span of the audience.
-
The only thing Lance is Dedicated to are the findings of the Warren Commission Sham which he defends like the good, little Zealot he is.
Etc., etc., etc.
We here at the Arizona Institute for Weirdness Studies are unworthy of so much attention from someone of Dan's stature and are nonplussed and dismayed at the extent to which our little contributions seem to have brought pain to his fragile psyche in this instance. Since our very mission is to spread weirdness-oriented joy and light in our wake, our own fragile psyches are pained by Dan’s apparent lack of joy and light. The good news is, help is available. Trained AIWS counselors who promise not to giggle at you are standing by at 1-800-IMA-WACKO.
The source of Dan’s pain is not clear to us, and we have pondered his words deeply. A few weeks ago, he was promoting a conspiracy in which Bill Shelley had recruited a sixth-floor hitman at the behest of Jack Cason and had personally held Oswald in a headlock in a first floor anteroom during the shooting, playfully administering noogies to Oswald’s noggin. Here, he argued that the witnesses establish a strong circumstantial case that Oswald was not the sixth-floor gunman, which dovetails nicely with his noogies-noggin theory. He further accused our beloved founder, a Serious and Dedicated Researcher, of not dealing in substance in his responses.
Deeply pained, our beloved founder undertook a diligent review of all the said witnesses and established that only 18-year-old whiz kid Arnold Rowland said anything seriously inconsistent with Oswald being the sixth-floor shooter. Rowland, moreover, was talking about a man with a rifle at the opposite end of the sixth floor and, moreover moreover, his first several accounts said nothing about an overshirt and were not at all inconsistent with the man, if there was one at all, being Oswald.
Our beloved founder thought his most recent contribution was rather substantive on his part and demonstrated that Dan’s strong circumstantial case had pretty much gone poof. In any event, if Dan insists his strong circumstantial case has in fact not gone poof and that our beloved founder is just a Lone Nut zealot meanie, we shall humbly accept this verdict rather than push the matter and risk the infliction of more psychic pain. Indeed, several of our board members fear that Dan seems to be morphing into Martin Weidmann before their very eyes, but perhaps this is just their overactive imaginations and we have admonished them not to start seeing sock puppets under every rock.
Wishing you all, and especially Dan, peace, joy, love, etc., etc., we remain
The Arizona Institute for Weirdness Studies
-
We here at the Arizona Institute for Weirdness Studies are unworthy of so much attention from someone of Dan's stature and are nonplussed and dismayed at the extent to which our little contributions seem to have brought pain to his fragile psyche in this instance. Since our very mission is to spread weirdness-oriented joy and light in our wake, our own fragile psyches are pained by Dan’s apparent lack of joy and light. The good news is, help is available. Trained AIWS counselors who promise not to giggle at you are standing by at 1-800-IMA-WACKO.
The source of Dan’s pain is not clear to us, and we have pondered his words deeply. A few weeks ago, he was promoting a conspiracy in which Bill Shelley had recruited a sixth-floor hitman at the behest of Jack Cason and had personally held Oswald in a headlock in a first floor anteroom during the shooting, playfully administering noogies to Oswald’s noggin. Here, he argued that the witnesses establish a strong circumstantial case that Oswald was not the sixth-floor gunman, which dovetails nicely with his noogies-noggin theory. He further accused our beloved founder, a Serious and Dedicated Researcher, of not dealing in substance in his responses.
Deeply pained, our beloved founder undertook a diligent review of all the said witnesses and established that only 18-year-old whiz kid Arnold Rowland said anything seriously inconsistent with Oswald being the sixth-floor shooter. Rowland, moreover, was talking about a man with a rifle at the opposite end of the sixth floor and, moreover moreover, his first several accounts said nothing about an overshirt and were not at all inconsistent with the man, if there was one at all, being Oswald.
Our beloved founder thought his most recent contribution was rather substantive on his part and demonstrated that Dan’s strong circumstantial case had pretty much gone poof. In any event, if Dan insists his strong circumstantial case has in fact not gone poof and that our beloved founder is just a Lone Nut zealot meanie, we shall humbly accept this verdict rather than push the matter and risk the infliction of more psychic pain. Indeed, several of our board members fear that Dan seems to be morphing into Martin Weidmann before their very eyes, but perhaps this is just their overactive imaginations and we have admonished them not to start seeing sock puppets under every rock.
Wishing you all, and especially Dan, peace, joy, love, etc., etc., we remain
The Arizona Institute for Weirdness Studies
*Oswald's being
The Gerund Takes the Possessive.
-
Imagine if this was the standard in any other criminal case:
"There is no physical evidence telling us who was on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting so we must rely solely on eye-witness testimony.
Many Nutters have convinced themselves that, because Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th floor, it is proof Oswald was on the 6th floor during the shooting. It is not. It is circumstantial evidence supporting the theory that Oswald took the shots. Nothing more.
There is no film/photographic evidence showing anyone identifiable on the 6th floor so we must rely on eye-witness testimony."
Oswald's rifle is found at the scene of a shooting. It is found on the same floor from which several witnesses saw a rifle in the window at the moment of the assassination. Oswald's prints are the only ones found on that rifle. Its serial number links it to him. There is no evidence that his rifle was in the possession of any other person. His prints are also on the boxes in front of the window from which the shots were fired. His prints are also on a bag found next to the SN for which there is no other explanation other than being used to carry the rifle. Oswald has no credible alibi for the moment of the shooting. He lies about his ownership of the rifle, flees the crime scene and shoots a police officer. Oswald provides no explanation for the presence of his rifle on the 6th floor. In any other case, this would be considered conclusive of his guilt. Here we learn that there apparently is doubt because there is no film of Oswald committing the crime. If that is the standard, then it would be impossible to convict almost anyone of a crime because most criminals make some effort to conceal their involvement in a crime. Very few are dumb enough to allow themselves to be filmed committing a crime. All the more true in 1963 when there were fewer security cameras and fewer individuals with immediate access to a camera.
I didn't see this before, Richard, but you are spot on.
I was introduced to criminal defense tactics in a misdemeanor DUI case in a local magistrate court. The tiny woman defendant admitted she had consumed a pitcher of beer. She stumbled and dropped her purse leaving the restaurant, dropped her keys and stumbled again when the parking valet handed them to her, was observed by police running over a curb, and of course badly failed the field sobriety tests. Her defense attorney, who had no case, tried asking the jury "Folks, have you ever stumbled ... ever dropped your keys or purse ... ever run over a curb? Of course, you have." The answer, of course, was that you've never done all those things in the space of ten minutes when you weren't badly impaired.
Parsing things in this manner, as though they were all unrelated, is standard Defense Tactics 101. This is what I have said about Dan's approach here: He wants to consider each item of evidence in isolation and without regard to whether what he is suggesting makes any sense in the context of the other evidence and the event as a whole. When this is pointed out, he then shifts to ad hominem attacks as to how his accuser is delusional and a mindless LN zealot.
-
I didn't see this before, Richard, but you are spot on.
I was introduced to criminal defense tactics in a misdemeanor DUI case in a local magistrate court. The tiny woman defendant admitted she had consumed a pitcher of beer. She stumbled and dropped her purse leaving the restaurant, dropped her keys and stumbled again when the parking valet handed them to her, was observed by police running over a curb, and of course badly failed the field sobriety tests. Her defense attorney, who had no case, tried asking the jury "Folks, have you ever stumbled ... ever dropped your keys or purse ... ever run over a curb? Of course, you have." The answer, of course, was that you've never done all those things in the space of ten minutes when you weren't badly impaired.
Parsing things in this manner, as though they were all unrelated, is standard Defense Tactics 101. This is what I have said about Dan's approach here: He wants to consider each item of evidence in isolation and without regard to whether what he is suggesting makes any sense in the context of the other evidence and the event as a whole. When this is pointed out, he then shifts to ad hominem attacks as to how his accuser is delusional and a mindless LN zealot.
Sounds like the "work" of a Public Defender.
-
I think the meaning of this thread has somehow got lost - 'The Assassination was Sloppy and Amateurish''
The lone gunmen 'theorists' are absolutely correct when they assert that Oswald would have been convicted. Factual evidence shows that it was his rifle, his fingerprints and had no alibi. a slam dunk! But that was because the assassination was so well planned and executed -it wasn't 'sloppy and amateurish' at all. Oswald had no idea he was being set up, and by whom, and is the reason he described himself as a 'patsy'. Lieing about the gun is probably what anyone would have done in the predicament Oswald found himself in. Shooting a police officer before he arrests him, which would with absolute certainty lead to his conviction and certain death would be a rational decision to make. There are some who suggest he was on his way to the Texas Theatre to meet up with his co-conspirators, but he was walking in the opposite direction, towards the Greyhound bus stop which would have taken him to Mexico, another logical and rational decision. All rationality was lost once he shot JD Tippit, he was already stressed, but this put him into complete panic mode, rushing from the scene, looking for somewhere to hide.
-
I think the meaning of this thread has somehow got lost - 'The Assassination was Sloppy and Amateurish''
The lone gunmen 'theorists' are absolutely correct when they assert that Oswald would have been convicted. Factual evidence shows that it was his rifle, his fingerprints and had no alibi. a slam dunk! But that was because the assassination was so well planned and executed -it wasn't 'sloppy and amateurish' at all. Oswald had no idea he was being set up, and by whom, and is the reason he described himself as a 'patsy'. Lieing about the gun is probably what anyone would have done in the predicament Oswald found himself in. Shooting a police officer before he arrests him, which would with absolute certainty lead to his conviction and certain death would be a rational decision to make. There are some who suggest he was on his way to the Texas Theatre to meet up with his co-conspirators, but he was walking in the opposite direction, towards the Greyhound bus stop which would have taken him to Mexico, another logical and rational decision. All rationality was lost once he shot JD Tippit, he was already stressed, but this put him into complete panic mode, rushing from the scene, looking for somewhere to hide.
Ah, the fact that it APPEARS as sloppy and amateurish as a Keystone Cops flick directed by Curly, Larry and Moe is, in fact, PROOF that it was highly organized and professional! This reminds me of my theory that if I wanted to kill my neighbor Fred, I would do so in such a preposterously ghastly and depraved manner that the crime itself would be my insanity defense. The jurors would look at each other and say, "He HAD to be insane to make THAT mess. If he were sane, he would've simply shot him." You would have to take us through in much greater detail how you think the JFKA shows evidence of being organized and professional. Otherwise, it appears you're just saying "The very fact the conspirators did such a good job of making Oswald seem to be the lone gunman is proof of how clever and professional they were because we know he wasn't the lone gunman." It's that last part that's the problem.
-
I’ve got a new proposition that a professional sniper WAS the gunman at the SE TSBD window, choosing this more difficult scenario of shooting at a moving target, because part of his contract /plan necessitated that Oswald had to be implicated as the suspect.
I see 2 possibilities:
A. this mission to frame Oswald was directed by some higher authority ordering the hit, which compelled the pro sniper to choose TSBD 6th floor.
B. The pro shooter was some rogue CIA pro who had a personal vendetta against JFK and Oswald as well.
In either case, the pro snipers primary mission was to terminate JFK so he chose to use his own precision rifle while preplanting the POS MC rifle in the boxes perhaps a day earlier or in the middle of the night when he was able easily get into the unsecured TSBD.
He fired 3 shots from the SE window, 1st was at Z224, a hit that went thru both JFK and JC. Not the kill shot though. So he aimed and tracked more carefully for the 2nd shot, and hit the kill shot 4.8 seconds later at Z313.
The 3rd shot was unaimed and fired as rapidly(2secs later ) as the gunman could operate his better quality bolt action rifle which he kept the barrel sticking out the window as he did this last shot (which hit curb near James Tague)
The reason to do this was to maximize the rifle barrel being seen stuck out the 6th floor SE window of TSBD to focus attention to that 6th floor window, where 3 MC shells were left the pro shooter (while picking up his own shells and his rifle) with him when he escaped from 6th floor probably using the west elevator.
This scenario preserves the Harold Norman witness having heard 3 shots fired and 3 shells hitting the floor)
-
I think the meaning of this thread has somehow got lost - 'The Assassination was Sloppy and Amateurish''
The lone gunmen 'theorists' are absolutely correct when they assert that Oswald would have been convicted. Factual evidence shows that it was his rifle, his fingerprints and had no alibi. a slam dunk! But that was because the assassination was so well planned and executed -it wasn't 'sloppy and amateurish' at all. Oswald had no idea he was being set up, and by whom, and is the reason he described himself as a 'patsy'. Lieing about the gun is probably what anyone would have done in the predicament Oswald found himself in. Shooting a police officer before he arrests him, which would with absolute certainty lead to his conviction and certain death would be a rational decision to make. There are some who suggest he was on his way to the Texas Theatre to meet up with his co-conspirators, but he was walking in the opposite direction, towards the Greyhound bus stop which would have taken him to Mexico, another logical and rational decision. All rationality was lost once he shot JD Tippit, he was already stressed, but this put him into complete panic mode, rushing from the scene, looking for somewhere to hide.
The SBT all by itself would get Oswald off. As they say at the ball yard, "It only takes 1". That BS: SBT stuff would convince at least 1 juror there was a conspiracy/frame job on 11/22/63. The SBT just does Not make sense to the common sense of Joe 6 Pack.
-
I’ve got a new proposition that a professional sniper WAS the gunman at the SE TSBD window, choosing this more difficult scenario of shooting at a moving target, because part of his contract /plan necessitated that Oswald had to be implicated as the suspect.
I see 2 possibilities:
A. this mission to frame Oswald was directed by some higher authority ordering the hit, which compelled the pro sniper to choose TSBD 6th floor.
B. The pro shooter was some rogue CIA pro who had a personal vendetta against JFK and Oswald as well.
In either case, the pro snipers primary mission was to terminate JFK so he chose to use his own precision rifle while preplanting the POS MC rifle in the boxes perhaps a day earlier or in the middle of the night when he was able easily get into the unsecured TSBD.
He fired 3 shots from the SE window, 1st was at Z224, a hit that went thru both JFK and JC. Not the kill shot though. So he aimed and tracked more carefully for the 2nd shot, and hit the kill shot 4.8 seconds later at Z313.
The 3rd shot was unaimed and fired as rapidly(2secs later ) as the gunman could operate his better quality bolt action rifle which he kept the barrel sticking out the window as he did this last shot (which hit curb near James Tague)
The reason to do this was to maximize the rifle barrel being seen stuck out the 6th floor SE window of TSBD to focus attention to that 6th floor window, where 3 MC shells were left the pro shooter (while picking up his own shells and his rifle) with him when he escaped from 6th floor probably using the west elevator.
This scenario preserves the Harold Norman witness having heard 3 shots fired and 3 shells hitting the floor)
Hi Zeon,
Your alternate theories get more and more complicated.
How about the simplest theory that satisfies all your possibilities.
Oswald wrapped his rifle in brown paper and took it to work and took three shots to kill the President.
Oswald in the Marines initially qualified as a Sharpshooter and being a little rusty took three shots but an Expert Assassin would have been successful with only 1 shot and would not risk taking three shots over many seconds because the SS could have shielded Kennedy or Jackie could have moved JFK out of the way.
What do some Marine Officers say about Oswald's Marine shooting abilities.
Mr. SPECTER. Based on the tests of Mr. Oswald shown by those documents, how would you characterize his ability as a marksman?
Sergeant ZAHM. I would say in the Marine Corps he is a good shot, slightly above average, and as compared to the average male of his age throughout the civilian, throughout the United States, that he is an excellent shot.
How about the question of Oswald's capabilities to take the head shot?
Mr. SPECTER - I now show you a document marked as Commission Exhibit No. 902, which characterizes what was believed to have been the shot which struck President Kennedy in the head at a distance from rifle in window to the President of 265.3 feet, with the photograph through rifle scope identified on the document being the view which the marksman had of the President at the time the President was struck in the head, and I ask you again for an opinion as to the ease or difficulty of that shot, taking into consideration the capabilities of Mr. Oswald as a marksman, evidenced by the Marine Corps documents on him.
Major ANDERSON - I consider it to be not a particularly difficult shot at this short range, and that Oswald had full capabilities to make such a shot.
Then lastly, what was the difficulties of Oswald with his equipment of taking the Dealey Plaza shot?
Mr. SPECTER. How would you characterize that, as a difficult, not too difficult, easy, or how would you characterize that shot?
Sergeant ZAHM. With the equipment he had and with his ability, I consider it a very easy shot.
(https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5005cf71e4b059c85b977f11/1448215577875-FB53BIZ7FZWRRK6CWFZB/image-asset.jpeg)
Oswald's "POS rifle" was at least as accurate as the then current American M-14.
Mr. EISENBERG. I should ask first if you are familiar with this weapon.
I have handed the witness Commission Exhibit 139.
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. We fired this weapon from a machine rest for round-to-round dispersion. We fired exactly 20 rounds in this test, and the dispersion which we measured is of conventional magnitude, about the same that we get with our present military rifles, and the standard deviation of dispersion is .29 mil.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is a fraction of a degree?
Mr. SIMMONS. A mil is an angular measurement. There are 17.7 mils to a degree.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do I understand your testimony to be that this rifle is as accurate as the current American military rifles?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. As far as we can determine from bench-rest firing.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you consider that to be a high degree of accuracy?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, the weapon is quite accurate. For most small arms, we discover that the round- to-round dispersion is of the order of three-tenths of a mil. We have run into some unusual ones, however, which give us higher values, but very few which give us smaller values, except in selected lots of ammunition.
Mr. McCLOY. You are talking about the present military rifle--will you designate it?
Mr. SIMMONS. The M-14.
JohnM
-
I thought the general theory was that Oswald did Not use the scope on the Carcano to fire shots. And here we got Specter asking questions about how easy the shot is using the scope? And today we got Max Holland claiming Oswald fired a shot while in a standing position? This Oswald story continues to radically change from the BS: that Specter was peddling.
-
I thought the general theory was that Oswald did Not use the scope on the Carcano to fire shots. And here we got Specter asking questions about how easy the shot is using the scope? And today we got Max Holland claiming Oswald fired a shot while in a standing position? This Oswald story continues to radically change from the BS: that Specter was peddling.
I thought the general theory was that Oswald did Not use the scope on the Carcano to fire shots.
"General theory" LOL
And here we got Specter asking questions about how easy the shot is using the scope?
Oswald's rifle was discovered with scope attached, so wouldn't he ask questions about the scope? Doh!
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/SsnIeaAWFfo/hqdefault.jpg)
And today we got Max Holland claiming Oswald fired a shot while in a standing position?
So what?
This Oswald story continues to radically change from the BS: that Specter was peddling.
Wow, what an overreaction. Specter was simply exploring what happened and experts overwhelmingly agreed that not only was Oswald's rifle capable but Oswald's Marine experience gave him the ability to easily carry out the assassination.
(https://cdn.rrauction.com/auction/417/3298646_5.jpg)
Mr. SPECTER. Could you characterize for me in some manner your experience then with telescopic sights in the number that you have used or duration of time where you have used telescopic sights?
Sergeant ZAHM. Well, from my own experience, and it is true that the higher powered telescopes are used in the particular type of firing we are doing right now, deliberate slow fire at extreme ranges of 600 and 1,000 yards. We use 12-power to 20-power telescopes. These are unsuitable for moving targets or closer ranges from unsteady positions, because the power of the telescope tends to magnify the shooter's movements and makes a hold more difficult.
In the lower-powered telescope such as four-power telescope at closer ranges ranging from 50 to 200 yards, this is an ideal type of weapon for moving targets or type of telescope for moving targets, and for the closer ranges, things being inherent in the focus of the scopes when you get in too close, the higher power type scopes tend to blur out to a certain degree.
Mr. SPECTER. Can you characterize the increased efficiency of a marksman in using a four-power scope as opposed to using only the iron sights?
Sergeant ZAHM. Well, with the iron sights you have more room for error in the fact that you have three variables. You have your targets, your front sight and your rear sight, and you have the possibility of an error in alining the sights, and then you also have the possibility of an error in the sights on the targets, which we refer to as the sight picture. Looking through aperture or even the open buckhorn type sights, when you are concentrating on your sights, your targets tend to become blurred because of the close focus of your eye in alining the sights.
Now this as opposed to telescope of a four-power nature it is a natural characteristic of a telescope when you are looking for your target, it is a natural thing to center your target in the view of your telescope, and in the center view of your telescope is the aiming crosshairs. This is only one point.
If you get this one point, the crosshairs in the proper relationship to your target, this is an aid in locating, finding your target, because you are using the scope in the sense as binoculars. Once you have found your target, your sights are already alined, and then through good trigger manipulation the shot should be well on the target.
Mr. SPECTER. With respect to rapid-fire shooting, how does the telescopic sight on a four-power scope work out?
Sergeant ZAHM. Four-power being a reasonably low-power scope, it has a fairly broad field of view. By this we mean it covers a reasonable amount of area out at about 100 yards, about I think probably around 30 feet or so. Using the scope, rapidly working a bolt and using the scope to relocate your target quickly and at the same time when you locate that target you identify it and the crosshairs are in close relationship to the point you want to shoot at, it just takes a minor move in aiming to bring the crosshairs to bear, and then it is a quick squeeze.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you characterize it as easy, difficult, or how would you characterize it to use a scope, a four-power scope in rapid fire?
Sergeant ZAHM. A real aid, an extreme aid.
Mr. SPECTER. Suppose in focusing in through the four-power scope you do not get a completely circular view, but instead get a partial view with a corner of the view being blacked out because you don't have the scope in direct alinement, but you are still able to see a sufficient amount of daylight through the scope so that you can see where the crosshairs line up on target. Is it in sufficient alinement at that juncture to permit the marksman to shoot accurately?
Sergeant ZAHM. Yes.
-
Point is, why is Specter asking questions about how easy the shots were when using the Carcano Scope, if Oswald did Not use the scope? Or, maybe at that point in time Specter believed that Oswald DID use the scope. The Oswald story has changed many, many, times. The most recent tinkering being the Max Holland unproven BS:. An elapsed firing time of roughly 11 seconds now? Almost DOUBLE the original 6 seconds elapsed firing time which stood for better than 50 yrs. If the JFK Limo was under fire for 11 continuous seconds and the SS Failed to return fire, we now have a serious problem with the SS.
-
Point is, why is Specter asking questions about how easy the shots were when using the Carcano Scope, if Oswald did Not use the scope? Or, maybe at that point in time Specter believed that Oswald DID use the scope. The Oswald story has changed many, many, times. The most recent tinkering being the Max Holland unproven BS:. An elapsed firing time of roughly 11 seconds now? Almost DOUBLE the original 6 seconds elapsed firing time which stood for better than 50 yrs. If the JFK Limo was under fire for 11 continuous seconds and the SS Failed to return fire, we now have a serious problem with the SS.
Storing,
At some point, didn't many JFKA "experts" believe that the three shots were fired over 8.6 seconds, or some-such thing, in the echo chamber known a Dealey Plaza? If so, is it really such a "leap" to go from that to . . . gasp . . . Max Holland's 11.25 seconds or to Brian Roselle's and Kenneth Scearce's more conservative 10.2 seconds?
Regardless, Max Holland believes Oswald's first, missing-everything shot rang out (or "muffled-out" is probably more appropriate) at hypothetical "Z-107," i.e., 1.5 seconds before Zapruder resumed filming -- after a long pause -- at Z-133, and that not only the limo but the Secret Service follow-up car had therefore already turned onto Elm Street, making it almost impossible for the agents in said car to crane their necks sharply upwards to their right side and see the former Marine sharpshooter and self-described Marxist getting ready to fire his second shot at JFK with the bullet now labeled CE-399 (which all rational JFK assassination students know wounded both JFK and JBC at some point between Z-222 and Z-224 and ended up being found inside Parkland Hospital, not far from where Governor Connally had been rolled in on a gurney).
Based on their analysis of the conscious reactions of seven witnesses (including everyone but Greer in the limo) to the sounds of the first shot, Brian Roselle and Kenneth Scearce determined in 2020 that said missing-everything shot was fired at hypothetical "Z-124," i.e., only half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming, thereby placing the limo and the follow-up car even farther down Elm Street and therefore requiring the Secret Service agents in that car to be true contortionists to be able to spot Oswald way up high and behind them.
D'oh
-
You got 4 SS Agents standing on the running boards of the Queen Mary. SA Lem Johns claimed he Jumped Out Of the LBJ SS Car and ran toward the JFK Limo when the Kill Shot landed. This stuff about SS Agents being forced to "crane" their necks is pure fiction. They can hit the ground facing any direction at any point in time. And the Max Holland shtick has absolutely No Evidence to support ANY of it. This goes for his claiming that Oswald's 1st shot from a standing position struck a signal light standard. There is Absolutely NO Evidence to support any of his looney tunes worthy tale.
-
You got 4 SS Agents standing on the running boards of the Queen Mary. SA Lem Johns claimed he Jumped Out Of the LBJ SS Car and ran toward the JFK Limo when the Kill Shot landed. This stuff about SS Agents being forced to "crane" their necks is pure fiction. They can hit the ground facing any direction at any point in time. And the Max Holland shtick has absolutely No Evidence to support ANY of it. This goes for his claiming that Oswald's 1st shot from a standing position struck a signal light standard. There is Absolutely NO Evidence to support any of his looney tunes worthy tale.
storing,
Max Holland is PROBABLY wrong about a first, MISSING-EVERYTHING SHOT at hypothetical "Z-107" (i.e., a-SECOND-and-a-HALF before Zapruder RESUMED filming after a long PAUSE at Z-133), but Brian Roselle and Kenneth Scearce are probably CORRECT when they say that, based on the CONSCIOUS reactions to the SOUNDS of the first, MISSING-EVERYTHING SHOT of JFK, Jackie, Governor Connally, Mrs. Connally, Roy Kellerman, George Hickey and Rosemary Willis, said MISSING-EVERYTHING shot was at hypothetical "Z-124," i.e., HALF-a-second before ZAPRUDER resumed filming at Z-133, at which point the limo and the follow-up car were WELL DOWN Elm Street. The Secret Service agents in the FOLLOW-UP car probably didn't turn their BODIES or crane their NECKS around to look at the upper windows of the TSBD at this point because the muzzle of Oswald's SHORT-RIFLE was INSIDE the building for that steeply-downward-ANGLED shot, and therefore the MUZZLE blast was somewhat MUFFLED in comparison to his two other, "FLATTER," shots which he fired when the muzzle of his short-rifle was OUTSIDE the building.
Although the Secret Service agents in the follow-up car DIDN'T notice Oswald or his SHORT-RIFLE in the Sniper's Nest window before, during, or after his first, MISSING-EVERYTHING, shot, several people in the motorcade cars that were still on Houston Street DID, not to mention people like Amos Euins who were standing near the TSBD at the time.
D'OH!
-
The SBT all by itself would get Oswald off. As they say at the ball yard, "It only takes 1". That BS: SBT stuff would convince at least 1 juror there was a conspiracy/frame job on 11/22/63. The SBT just does Not make sense to the common sense of Joe 6 Pack.
I accept your argument on that - it would be a lottery, but the chances of 12 jurors all having no insight or common sense is the less likely scenario
-
This shooting from a high angle at a moving target 72 ft below is not so easy a shot as it might seem, because there is an ever changing vertical plane angle and the limo was moving away slightly laterally and accelerating then slowing so inconsistent movement as well.
I’m inclined to agree with the 2 military expert snipers who said this was not an easy shot and they were doubtful that the MC rifle could be fired as rapidly as 2/3 rds majority of witness heard, including Harold Norman. Even Charles Brehm, a combat veteran said 3 shots fired about as rapidly as a bolt action rifle could be fired which is within 6-7 secs.
The CBS shooter trials had one old guy who managed to fire 3 shots in 5.6 seconds buts it’s doubtful if he really hit the target 3 times because they didn’t film up close the target. Maybe some magnification of the video can show the hits, so I’ll leave that to John Mytton who’s good at finding out such details.
None the less, it is improbable that 3 shots were fired over 10 seconds. Most witness heard the shots fired a 1….2..3 sequence more like in approx 6 secs and Norman’s boom click click sequence is completed in about only 4 secs.
Then there is also Lee Bowers rapping the hand on the desk that’s completed within about 4 secs.
Now it’s entirely possible that ear witnesses could be off maybe 1-2 secs and the time therefore a little longer like 6 secs, but to suggest they all were hearing 3 shots spread over 10-11 secs is highly improbable, especially when the clear majority 2/3rds heard the last 2 shots so close together.
This is why I’m suggesting that it WOULD require an expert sniper with a BETTER quality rifle than that old MC rifle with misaligned scope ( that had reticle drift as well) with a BETTER quality precision center mounted scope to get the kill shot at Z313.
Imo, the rifle that Arnold Rowland saw in the gunmans hand at 12:15 at the SW TSBD 6th floor window where Rowland was able to see the scope , is indicative that the rifle had a CENTER mounted scope thus was not the MC rifle with a side mounted scope.
If this were a one shot kill that a pro sniper could have easily accomplished then why has no professional shooter ever replicated such a feat in this Dealey plaza moving target scenario with just one shot scoring a head shot at the moving target?
-
The SBT all by itself would get Oswald off. As they say at the ball yard, "It only takes 1". That BS: SBT stuff would convince at least 1 juror there was a conspiracy/frame job on 11/22/63. The SBT just does Not make sense to the common sense of Joe 6 Pack.
No.
CE-567 and CE-569 alone tell you that the shot which struck the President in the head was fired from Oswald's rifle. This is completely unrelated to the SBT.
To correct your statement, 567 & 569 themselves would fry Oswald.
-
The moment that Specter presents his SBT to a possible jury, Oswald walks. Now, if he wants to completely abandon his cockamamie, "head bone connected to the ankle bone" shtick, maybe he gets somewhere. But as presented for 61+ years, this a package deal. 3 shots = ALL the bodily damage. (Tague included). The piecemeal dodging of the SBT/Pristine Bullet is indicative of just how DOA the SBT is.
-
No.
CE-567 and CE-569 alone tell you that the shot which struck the President in the head was fired from Oswald's rifle. This is completely unrelated to the SBT.
To correct your statement, 567 & 569 themselves would fry Oswald.
Sorry Bill, but that just isn't true. If it was, there would have been no need for the manipulation of the autopsy sketch showing the back of his head intact, instead of revealing an obvious exit wound
-
The claim has always been that ALL 3 shots came from the same Carcano Rifle, fired from the same window. And now right here on this forum we have people wanting to separate the SBT from the other 2 shots in order to send Oswald to the gallows? What we are now seeing with Old School JFK Researchers wanting to separate the 3 shots, and lengthen the elapsed firing time for the 3 shots, and relocate the JFK Limo on Elm St, is the imploding of the LN Theory. Knott Lab Forensic SCIENCE has the Old Guard Research Community now running away from the SBT.
-
Sorry Bill, but that just isn't true. If it was, there would have been no need for the manipulation of the autopsy sketch showing the back of his head intact, instead of revealing an obvious exit wound
How many of those red pills did you take, anyway?
-
How many of those red pills did you take, anyway?
(https://www.artnet.com/WebServices/images/ll00307lldCjmJFgOjECfDrCWvaHBOcup1F/abraham-zapruder-a-series-of-36-film-stills-and-40-color-slides-from-the-zapruder-film-of-president-kennedys.jpg)
-
(https://www.artnet.com/WebServices/images/ll00307lldCjmJFgOjECfDrCWvaHBOcup1F/abraham-zapruder-a-series-of-36-film-stills-and-40-color-slides-from-the-zapruder-film-of-president-kennedys.jpg)
Thanks for posting this Zapruder frame.
It gives us a very good view of how JFK's skull above and forward of his right ear exploded outward from the bullet that hit him in the back of the head.
-
Thanks for posting this Zapruder frame.
It gives us a very good view of how JFK's skull above and forward of his right ear exploded outward from the bullet that hit him in the back of the head.
It is still frames such as this that reinforce the Parkland Hospital Dr's observations of JFK only minutes after the assassination. So here we see the Flap hanging Down next to JFK's ear along with "something" stretching Up well over the Top of his head. Even a layman could Not miss seeing this 1963 cartoonish Special Effect. And I am not even going to get into the Black Shadow stretching across the back of his head from top-to-bottom. As we see clearer and clearer images of the Zapruder Film, the more it becomes obvious this $150,000 "film" has no evidentiary value. The Parkland Dr's observations totally discredit this intentionally distorted visual.
-
No.
CE-567 and CE-569 alone tell you that the shot which struck the President in the head was fired from Oswald's rifle. This is completely unrelated to the SBT.
To correct your statement, 567 & 569 themselves would fry Oswald.
A couple of things:
1) Please provide the WC ballistics report that demonstrates the matching rifling impressions for fragments CE-567 and CE-569, with the MC. Also, show us the report that the 2 fragments belonged to the same headshot bullet. While I acknowledge their claim of a match on both fragments, this is the WC we are talking about where Ford relocated the entry wound of CE-399 from the back to the neck.
2) If CE-567 and CE-569 are indeed 2 severely deformed fragments of the the same bullet that resulted in the catastrophic damage to JFK's head, then how do we reconcile this with the condition of CE-399, which penetrated JFK's T1 vertebra, as well as Connally's rib and wrist bones, appearing as though it had been fired into a swimming pool?
The WC agenda was clear. It only accepted evidence and testimony when it aligned with the LN narrative and rejected everything that didn't. Furthermore, how can the SBT remain tenable for you when it is clear that there is no valid trajectory from the sixth floor of the TSBD into JFK's back at T1 and out through his throat at C7? Even Ford acknowledged this inconsistency, which is why he relocated the back wound to the neck. However, even this adjustment did not elevate the plausibility of the SBT.
The only way for LNers to accept that Oswald was just a patsy and did not fire a shot at either JFK or Tippit is to bone up on logic and critical thinking, complemented by some understanding of physics. It only takes a bit of logic and 1 irrefutable fact to dismantle the LN argument, of which there are many. Once you establish this must have been a conspiracy it's game over. Instead, you refute all facts with denialism and mockery. Will you LNers ever learn?
-
A couple of things:
1) Please provide the WC ballistics report that demonstrates the matching rifling impressions for fragments CE-567 and CE-569, with the MC. Also, show us the report that the 2 fragments belonged to the same headshot bullet. While I acknowledge their claim of a match on both fragments, this is the WC we are talking about where Ford relocated the entry wound of CE-399 from the back to the neck.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406#relPageId=169
Ford did not relocate the entry wound of CE-399 from the back to the neck.
2) If CE-567 and CE-569 are indeed 2 severely deformed fragments of the the same bullet that resulted in the catastrophic damage to JFK's head, then how do we reconcile this with the condition of CE-399, which penetrated JFK's T1 vertebra, as well as Connally's rib and wrist bones, appearing as though it had been fired into a swimming pool?
CE-399 did not penetrate JFK's T1 vertebra. The first bone that it struck was Connally's rib. It struck it at a velocity that was well below that of the head shot bullet.
-
Rep Ford moved the JFK BACK Wound to the Base of his Neck. This is indisputable. Just look at the Autopsy Photo of JFK's Back. That bullet hole in JFK's BACK is Not in the Base of his Neck. Not even close.
-
Rep Ford moved the JFK BACK Wound to the Base of his Neck. This is indisputable. Just look at the Autopsy Photo of JFK's Back. That bullet hole in JFK's BACK is Not in the Base of his Neck. Not even close.
Storing,
Where would the measurements that the autopsy doctors wrote down on the autopsy cover sheet put the entrance wound, i.e.,"14 centimeters (about 5.5 inches) from the tip of the right acromion process* and 14 centimeters below the tip of the right mastoid process"?
*The acromion process is a bony projection located at the top of the shoulder blade (scapula). It extends laterally over the shoulder joint and forms the outer edge of the shoulder socket.
-
I continue to enjoy seeing LN's running away from the Autopsy Photo of JFK's BACK. They live and die with the JFK Assassination film/photo images as long as it suits their fancy. The JFK Autopsy Photo showing his BACK, issa Case Closed piece of Evidence regarding the location of that wound.
-
When you cut through all the CTer noise, it was Oswald's rifle that was left at the murder scene. Some loons may claim there is doubt about his ownership or that the presence of his rifle on the 6th floor means that he was the person who used it, but absent any credible alibi or explanation for his rifle being found on the 6th floor, that alone is extremely incriminate. That is enough to convict him in any court. There are many other facts and circumstances that link him to the crime. It's a very simple case at the end of the day. I have no doubt whatsoever that Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK. I have seen no credible evidence that he worked with or for anyone in so doing. Certain aspects of the case such as his motive can never be known with certainty. Only Oswald knows for sure and he didn't tell anyone but the fact that we can't possibly know everything doesn't preclude us from knowing anything or create any doubt. The totality of evidence, facts, and circumstances confirm that Oswald did it.
-
When you cut through all the CTer noise, it was Oswald's rifle that was left at the murder scene. Some loons may claim there is doubt about his ownership or that the presence of his rifle on the 6th floor means that he was the person who used it, but absent any credible alibi or explanation for his rifle being found on the 6th floor, that alone is extremely incriminate. That is enough to convict him in any court. There are many other facts and circumstances that link him to the crime. It's a very simple case at the end of the day. I have no doubt whatsoever that Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK. I have seen no credible evidence that he worked with or for anyone in so doing. Certain aspects of the case such as his motive can never be known with certainty. Only Oswald knows for sure and he didn't tell anyone but the fact that we can't possibly know everything doesn't preclude us from knowing anything or create any doubt. The totality of evidence, facts, and circumstances confirm that Oswald did it.
Oswald fired at Z-157, Z-224, and Z-313. The final shot was from the front IMO. I never understood how anyone could think he was 100% innocent.
-
Officer Baker is Oswald's alibi. I still have no idea why Baker did Not "pat down" Oswald. Baker thought that there was an "active shooter" atop/inside the TSBD. Just because Roy Truly said "he works here", (Baker literally had no verification as to who Truly was), does not mean that Baker should have immediately released Oswald. Maybe Oswald had that Fake ID on him at that time? Officer Baker pats Oswald down and finds that Fake ID, probably means that Tippit lives.
-
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406#relPageId=169
Ford did not relocate the entry wound of CE-399 from the back to the neck.
There's the denialism, right on cue.
CE-399 did not penetrate JFK's T1 vertebra. The first bone that it struck was Connally's rib. It struck it at a velocity that was well below that of the head shot bullet.
LOL. Your only response is that CE-399 struck 1 less bone, which kept it pristine. However, the evidence according to the WC says otherwise.
Here is a forensic analysis of the trajectory of CE-399 based on simple geometry and the WC report:
If CE-399 was a shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD at a 17-degree declination, and JFK's body was turned 17 degrees clockwise, with the missile striking JFK somewhere between frames 210 and 225 of the Z-film, marking his position between 138.9 and 153.8 feet from the base of the TSBD, then based on the autopsy photo, which the WC claims is authentic, CE-399 entered JFK's back ~2 inches right of the center of his spinal cord. The exit wound was positioned almost dead center out through his throat. This trajectory clearly passes through the spinal column:
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/MRI_MB_T1_8b.png
But what vertebra? The original Boswell forensic diagram initially placed the back wound vertically at T2 or T3, which Ford subsequently relocated to C6.
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/boswell-original.png
Note where the bullet hole entrance was placed on JFK's jacket.
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_clothing.jpg
I question Ford's placement and will adhere to Boswell's estimate that CE-399 should be placed at T1 according to the autopsy X-ray provided by the WC:
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/x-ray_mb.gif
Conclusion:
If you believe the evidence supplied by the WC to be accurate, then the Single Bullet Theory is compromised, which negates a valid trajectory from the 6th floor of the TSBD that entered JFK's back at the T1 vertebra and exited at C7/C6. This is based on evidence provided by the WC, which Ford definitively altered to cover up the conspiracy that Oswald was a lone nut assassin. Fact is, Oswald never even took a shot because he was in the lunch room at the time. Clearly he was just the patsy.
QED
-
I continue to enjoy seeing LN's running away from the Autopsy Photo of JFK's BACK. They live and die with the JFK Assassination film/photo images as long as it suits their fancy. The JFK Autopsy Photo showing his BACK, issa Case Closed piece of Evidence regarding the location of that wound.
Storing,
Where did the measurements that the autopsy doctors wrote down on the autopsy cover sheet place the entrance wound, i.e.,"14 centimeters (about 5.5 inches) from the tip of the right acromion process* and 14 centimeters below the tip of the right mastoid process"?
Does that sound like 1) upper-back, or 2) lower-neck to you?
D'oh
*The acromion process is a bony projection located at the top of the shoulder blade (scapula). It extends laterally over the shoulder joint and forms the outer edge of the shoulder socket.
-
As usual, you guys wanna run away from the JFK Autopsy Photo of his BACK. That piece of evidence is a slam dunk.
-
As usual, you guys wanna run away from the JFK Autopsy Photo of his BACK. That piece of evidence is a slam dunk.
Storing,
Do the measurements on the autopsy cover sheet, i.e., "14 centimeters from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 centimeters below the tip of the right mastoid process," place the entrance wound in JFK's upper back, or in his lower neck?
-
LOL. Your only response is that CE-399 struck 1 less bone, which kept it pristine. However, the evidence according to the WC says otherwise.
My response was that CE-399 did not strike T1 and that it struck Connally's rib at a velocity that was much reduced from the velocity it was travelling as it passed by C7. The bullet was not pristine. The evidence according to the WC does not say otherwise.
Here is a forensic analysis of the trajectory of CE-399 based on simple geometry and the WC report:
If CE-399 was a shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD at a 17-degree declination, and JFK's body was turned 17 degrees clockwise, with the missile striking JFK somewhere between frames 210 and 225 of the Z-film, marking his position between 138.9 and 153.8 feet from the base of the TSBD, then based on the autopsy photo, which the WC claims is authentic, CE-399 entered JFK's back ~2 inches right of the center of his spinal cord. The exit wound was positioned almost dead center out through his throat. This trajectory clearly passes through the spinal column:
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/MRI_MB_T1_8b.png
That's the T1 vertebrae, is it not? The single bullet passed above that level. You need to find an image of C7. Keep in mind that the C7 vertebrae is about 2 inches from the tip of the left transverse process to the tip of the right transverse process. Use that as a guage for placing the wound 2 inches to the right of the midline. Your right rotation of Kennedy's torso looks to be about right. However, you haven't accounted for his head being turned about 60 degrees to the right. That turn rotates the C7 vertebrae by a few degrees. It also moves his trachea to the right. Perhaps as much as an inch. With a lateral angle of 9 degrees the bullet would have exited Kennedy about 1 inch to the right of his midline. Contrary to what you claim, the exit wound was not positioned almost dead center out through the throat. Viewing from the back, it exited to the right of the midline.
But what vertebra? The original Boswell forensic diagram initially placed the back wound vertically at T2 or T3, which Ford subsequently relocated to C6.
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/boswell-original.png
The facesheet placed the wound 14 cm below the tip of the right mastoid process. The dot was not meant to be accurate. Ford did not relocate the wound to C6.
(https://i.imgur.com/NCc4d8A.png)
Note where the bullet hole entrance was placed on JFK's jacket.
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_clothing.jpg
The jacket was bunched up.
I question Ford's placement and will adhere to Boswell's estimate that CE-399 should be placed at T1 according to the autopsy X-ray provided by the WC:
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/x-ray_mb.gif
Conclusion:
If you believe the evidence supplied by the WC to be accurate, then the Single Bullet Theory is compromised, which negates a valid trajectory from the 6th floor of the TSBD that entered JFK's back at the T1 vertebra and exited at C7/C6. This is based on evidence provided by the WC, which Ford definitively altered to cover up the conspiracy that Oswald was a lone nut assassin. Fact is, Oswald never even took a shot because he was in the lunch room at the time. Clearly he was just the patsy.
There was no Ford placement. The wound was always in the neck. The autopsy report has the bullet traversing downward through the supra-scapular and supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck. Humes testified that the wound was in the lower neck.
Commander HUMES - The wound in the low neck of which I had previously begun to speak is now posteriorly--is now depicted in 385, in 386 and in 388.
.....
Commander HUMES - You will note that the wound in the posterior portion of the occiput on Exhibit 388 is somewhat longer than the other missile wound which we have not yet discussed in the low neck.
.....
Commander HUMES - I--our previously submitted report, which is Commission No. 387, identified a wound in the low posterior neck of the President.
.....
Commander HUMES - In attempting to relate findings within the President's body to this wound which we had observed low in his neck, we then opened his chest cavity,
.....
Commander HUMES - The report which we have submitted, sir, represents our thinking within the 24-48 hours of the death of the President, all facts taken into account of the situation.
The wound in the anterior portion of the lower neck is physically lower than the point of entrance posteriorly, sir.
-
My response was that CE-399 did not strike T1 and that it struck Connally's rib at a velocity that was much reduced from the velocity it was travelling as it passed by C7. The bullet was not pristine. The evidence according to the WC does not say otherwise.
LOL, more denialism. The X-ray absolutely demonstrates that CE-399 smashed through T1 exactly as my overhead graphic implies. You know you've lost the argument when you resort to semantics. Compared to the severely deformed fragments CE-567 and CE-569, CE-399 was indeed pristine, which was clearly planted on the wrong stretcher without a trace of blood, flesh, or bone on it. You are not a serious proponent of the SBT if you do not acknowledge the dubious provenance of CE-399. Will you never learn?
That's the T1 vertebrae, is it not? The single bullet passed above that level. You need to find an image of C7. Keep in mind that the C7 vertebrae is about 2 inches from the tip of the left transverse process to the tip of the right transverse process.
Like Ford, you at least recognize that T1 is too low for the SBT to be plausible. If you think that the autopsy photo and the X-ray photo show an entry wound at C7, then your slip is showing. Besides, even if you move the entry wound up to C7, you need it to go up to C6 for it to exit at C7. You suck at geometry.
* Note that providing the X-ray photo is authentic, then it represents the holy grail of the CE-399 trajectory
Use that as a guage for placing the wound 2 inches to the right of the midline. Your right rotation of Kennedy's torso looks to be about right. However, you haven't accounted for his head being turned about 60 degrees to the right. That turn rotates the C7 vertebrae by a few degrees. It also moves his trachea to the right. Perhaps as much as an inch. With a lateral angle of 9 degrees the bullet would have exited Kennedy about 1 inch to the right of his midline. Contrary to what you claim, the exit wound was not positioned almost dead center out through the throat. Viewing from the back, it exited to the right of the midline.
Actually, the bullet hole exited slightly to the left of the midline, which means it smashed through more of the T1 vertebra, not less. Have a look at the bullet hole through JFK's shirt collar.
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_shirt.jpg
The facesheet placed the wound 14 cm below the tip of the right mastoid process. The dot was not meant to be accurate. Ford did not relocate the wound to C6.
Boswell backtracked as instructed by Ford. Ford's only statement described the placement of JFK's back wound as entering the back of his neck and exiting through the lower front portion of his neck. This implies that Ford placed the back wound above C7 at C6.
Did you notice where Boswell placed the "X" above his original estimate, which was still below C6, where Ford placed it? Note that Boswell placed the X BELOW the collar. Note where the bullet exited relative to the collar button at C7. Clearly, the entrance wound was placed BELOW the exit wound, which is impossible if fired at a 17-degree declination from the SN.
The jacket was bunched up.
Correct, which brought the back wound up from T4/T5 as shown on CE-59 up to T1 as shown on the X-ray autopsy photo.
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_clothing.jpg
However, JFK's collar did not bunch, which placed the exit wound at C7/C6. This implies an upward trajectory from the back to front, which is impossible.
There was no Ford placement. The wound was always in the neck. The autopsy report has the bullet traversing downward through the supra-scapular and supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck. Humes testified that the wound was in the lower neck.
LOL, you are quoting a co-conspirator who performed post-mortem surgery on JFK in secret to cover up a bullet wound, which was an entrance wound, and then burned all his notes.
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/postsurgery.jpg
Why would you rely on testimony from co-conspirators when the WC provided autopsy photos clearly showing the position of the bullet wounds on JFK? Is it because the assassination was sloppy and amateurish with no attention to detail? Or was it because the WC did not anticipate the level of scrutiny the evidence would receive?
Will you never learn anything? I guess so.
-
LOL, more denialism. The X-ray absolutely demonstrates that CE-399 smashed through T1 exactly as my overhead graphic implies. You know you've lost the argument when you resort to semantics. Compared to the severely deformed fragments CE-567 and CE-569, CE-399 was indeed pristine, which was clearly planted on the wrong stretcher without a trace of blood, flesh, or bone on it. You are not a serious proponent of the SBT if you do not acknowledge the dubious provenance of CE-399. Will you never learn?
What X-Ray are you referring to, and why did the Clark panel and the HSCA FPP fail to note that it shows that the bullet smashed though T1?
Tomlinson stated that he found the bullet on the stretcher that he had pulled off of the elevator. That was the stretcher that Connally had been on. The bullet likely had blood on it from being in Connally's thigh. By the time it reached FBI Agent Robert Frazier, it had been in the pockets of two individuals. Frazier testified that "there may have been slight traces which could have been removed just ,in ordinary handling, but it wasn't necessary to actually clean blood or tissue off of the bullet".
(https://i.imgur.com/rk20BhI.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/dh1nUMK.jpeg)
Like Ford, you at least recognize that T1 is too low for the SBT to be plausible. If you think that the autopsy photo and the X-ray photo show an entry wound at C7, then your slip is showing. Besides, even if you move the entry wound up to C7, you need it to go up to C6 for it to exit at C7. You suck at geometry.
* Note that providing the X-ray photo is authentic, then it represents the holy grail of the CE-399 trajectory
I don't recognize T1 as being too low for the SBT to work. I'm merely going by what the evidence says. The autopsy report has the bullet traversing downward through the supra-scapular and supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck. Humes testified that the wound was in the lower neck.
Actually, the bullet hole exited slightly to the left of the midline, which means it smashed through more of the T1 vertebra, not less. Have a look at the bullet hole through JFK's shirt collar.
Dr. PERRY - I was in the Administrator's office here when he called.
Mr. SPECTER - And what did he ask you, if anything?
Dr. PERRY - He inquired about, initially, about the reasons for my doing a tracheotomy, and I replied, as I have to you, during this procedure, that there was a wound in the lower anterior third of the neck, which was exuding blood and was indicative of a possible tracheal injury underlying, and I did the tracheotomy through a transverse incision made through that wound, and I described to him' the right lateral injury to the trachea and the completion of the operation.
Boswell backtracked as instructed by Ford. Ford's only statement described the placement of JFK's back wound as entering the back of his neck and exiting through the lower front portion of his neck. This implies that Ford placed the back wound above C7 at C6.
Did you notice where Boswell placed the "X" above his original estimate, which was still below C6, where Ford placed it? Note that Boswell placed the X BELOW the collar. Note where the bullet exited relative to the collar button at C7. Clearly, the entrance wound was placed BELOW the exit wound, which is impossible if fired at a 17-degree declination from the SN.
Where do you get that Boswell backtracked as instructed by Ford?
Ford never placed the wound at C6. He never moved it anywhere. All that he did was recommend that wording in the draft report be altered to reflect what is in the autopsy report and what Humes testified to.
Correct, which brought the back wound up from T4/T5 as shown on CE-59 up to T1 as shown on the X-ray autopsy photo.
What X-Ray autopsy photo?
However, JFK's collar did not bunch, which placed the exit wound at C7/C6. This implies an upward trajectory from the back to front, which is impossible.
I can't make sense of what you're trying to say with that. It doesn't make sense.
LOL, you are quoting a co-conspirator who performed post-mortem surgery on JFK in secret to cover up a bullet wound, which was an entrance wound, and then burned all his notes.
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/postsurgery.jpg
Why would you rely on testimony from co-conspirators when the WC provided autopsy photos clearly showing the position of the bullet wounds on JFK? Is it because the assassination was sloppy and amateurish with no attention to detail? Or was it because the WC did not anticipate the level of scrutiny the evidence would receive?
Will you never learn anything? I guess so.
Oh boy. You are in deep. Come up for air.
Humes copied his bloodied notes word for word before he burned them.
-
I have no intention of going down your rabbit hole of obfuscation. As I mentioned initially, you lack critical thinking skills and struggle with geometry. The bottom line is that the magic bullet entry wound was lower than the exit wound, which negates a shot from the SN, and the WC tried to cover it up. This implies a second shooter and a conspiracy. If this was a conspiracy, then Oswald was a patsy and likely didn't even take a shot.
You are incapable of learning anything because you are too deeply invested. At this point, you would have to concede that you have been wasting decades of your life defending the WC and the LN conspiracy. The pathetic part of this is that defending the conspirators is just your hobby, and you likely never got paid for it. Sucker!
-
I have no intention of going down your rabbit hole of obfuscation. As I mentioned initially, you lack critical thinking skills and struggle with geometry. The bottom line is that the magic bullet entry wound was lower than the exit wound, which negates a shot from the SN, and the WC tried to cover it up. This implies a second shooter and a conspiracy. If this was a conspiracy, then Oswald was a patsy and likely didn't even take a shot.
You are incapable of learning anything because you are too deeply invested. At this point, you would have to concede that you have been wasting decades of your life defending the WC and the LN conspiracy. The pathetic part of this is that defending the conspirators is just your hobby, and you likely never got paid for it. Sucker!
Trojan,
How many bad guys do you figure were involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, the getting-away, and the all-important (and ongoing!!!) cover up?
Just a few, or oodles and gobs?
-
I have no intention of going down your rabbit hole of obfuscation. As I mentioned initially, you lack critical thinking skills and struggle with geometry. The bottom line is that the magic bullet entry wound was lower than the exit wound, which negates a shot from the SN, and the WC tried to cover it up. This implies a second shooter and a conspiracy. If this was a conspiracy, then Oswald was a patsy and likely didn't even take a shot.
You are incapable of learning anything because you are too deeply invested. At this point, you would have to concede that you have been wasting decades of your life defending the WC and the LN conspiracy. The pathetic part of this is that defending the conspirators is just your hobby, and you likely never got paid for it. Sucker!
Using the posterior autopsy view as a reference, place a mark on the lateral view at the level that you believe the entry wound on Kennedy was.
(https://i.imgur.com/EkFvpdf.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/bsOJdXy.jpeg)
-
There's the denialism, right on cue.
LOL. Your only response is that CE-399 struck 1 less bone, which kept it pristine. However, the evidence according to the WC says otherwise.
Here is a forensic analysis of the trajectory of CE-399 based on simple geometry and the WC report:
If CE-399 was a shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD at a 17-degree declination, and JFK's body was turned 17 degrees clockwise, with the missile striking JFK somewhere between frames 210 and 225 of the Z-film, marking his position between 138.9 and 153.8 feet from the base of the TSBD, then based on the autopsy photo, which the WC claims is authentic, CE-399 entered JFK's back ~2 inches right of the center of his spinal cord. The exit wound was positioned almost dead center out through his throat. This trajectory clearly passes through the spinal column:
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/MRI_MB_T1_8b.png
But what vertebra? The original Boswell forensic diagram initially placed the back wound vertically at T2 or T3, which Ford subsequently relocated to C6.
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/boswell-original.png
Note where the bullet hole entrance was placed on JFK's jacket.
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_clothing.jpg
I question Ford's placement and will adhere to Boswell's estimate that CE-399 should be placed at T1 according to the autopsy X-ray provided by the WC:
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/x-ray_mb.gif
Conclusion:
If you believe the evidence supplied by the WC to be accurate, then the Single Bullet Theory is compromised, which negates a valid trajectory from the 6th floor of the TSBD that entered JFK's back at the T1 vertebra and exited at C7/C6. This is based on evidence provided by the WC, which Ford definitively altered to cover up the conspiracy that Oswald was a lone nut assassin. Fact is, Oswald never even took a shot because he was in the lunch room at the time. Clearly he was just the patsy.
QED
JT: If CE-399 was a shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD at a 17-degree declination, and JFK's body was turned 17 degrees clockwise, with the missile striking JFK somewhere between frames 210 and 225 of the Z-film, marking his position between 138.9 and 153.8 feet from the base of the TSBD, then based on the autopsy photo, which the WC claims is authentic, CE-399 entered JFK's back ~2 inches right of the center of his spinal cord. The exit wound was positioned almost dead center out through his throat. This trajectory clearly passes through the spinal column:
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/MRI_MB_T1_8b.png
This is the axial section that you pasted a drawing of a vertebra onto it. Also, it's too low. The autopsists noted that the hemorrhage to pleural cavity was at the apex. However, the two dark spaces either side of the ersatz vertebra on your png show that this section was taken well below the apex. The location of the original throat wound can easily be seen in the autopsy photos to be roughly 1cm to the right of the midline. The exact location of that wound relative to the spine would also change somewhat depending on which direction JFK's head was turned and how much. We also don't know exactly how far from the centerline the back wound was, as the 5cm figure is an approximation. Other than that, Mrs Lincoln, the play was just fine.
JT: But what vertebra? The original Boswell forensic diagram initially placed the back wound vertically at T2 or T3, which Ford subsequently relocated to C6.
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/boswell-original.png
This drawing is schematic in nature and was not intended to show precisely where the wound was. If you don't believe me, as Boswell. He has said so in the past.
Had a bullet hit JFK in the back at t3, it would have hit the scapula, a rib, and/or violated the pleura. None of these things occurred.
and:
JT: http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/x-ray_mb.gif
This shows an undisplaced fracture of the right transverse process. Had the vertebra been hit by a bullet, the fracture wouldn't have been undisplaced. It would be very displaced, in little pieces. Look at the x-rays of the Edgewood cadaver wrist test shots to see what a rifle bullet would do to a bone at 2000ft/sec. There would have also been a great deal of secondary damage as well, but this is not seen in JFK's case.