JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Tom Graves on August 31, 2025, 03:45:41 AM
-
If they weren't already brainwashed and have a deep psychological need to believe that the evil, evil, evil CIA or [fill in the blank] killed JFK, what would it take to convince hardcore CTs that self-described Marxist and former Marine sharpshooter Lee Harvey Oswald killed him by firing three shots over 10.2 seconds in the echo chamber known as Dealey Plaza?
1) Proving that sneaky Oswald, instead of buying a bottle of his favorite soft drink, Dr. Pepper, from the dedicated Dr. Pepper machine on the first floor, bought in-advance a bottle Coca-Cola from the dedicated Coca-Cola machine on the second floor so he could use it as a prop after the shooting?
2) Proving that Oswald's first, missing-everything, shot was fired half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133?
3) Proving that it missed everything because it was steeply-downward-angled and required him to stand and lean forward awkwardly while firing it?
4) Demonstrating the perfect alignment -- based on analysis of the imperfect Zapruder film -- of CE-399's trajectory from the Sniper's Nest window through JFK's bunched-up jacket and shirt, his back and throat wounds, his tie, JBC's back wound, JBC's chest wound, JBC's wrist wound, and JBC's thigh wound?
5) Demonstrating on a live man -- who's sitting and wearing a tight back brace -- that when you destroy the right side of his brain with a 160-grain bullet that's travelling about 1300 mph, all of the muscles on the left side of his body will violently contract?
6) Proving that James Tague was nicked by a bullet fragment from the fatal head shot?
7) Proving that Vicki Adams spaced out on how long she and Sandra Styles had lingered at the window and then spoken with their supervisor before starting down the stairs?
8 ) Proving that Truly and Officer Baker actually took [fill in the blank] seconds to reach the second floor?
9) Proving that Oswald, Baker and Truly were inside the second-floor lunchroom when Adams and Styles were briefly on said floor?
Anything else?
-
Proving that James Tague was nicked by a bullet fragment from the fatal head shot?
This silly piece of fiction is indicative of your other arguments. Any fragment leaving JFK's head would have had to clear the limo's roll bar and windshield, travel several hundred feet while magically veering downward in midair, and then hit the curb with enough force to send concrete or metal streaking toward Tague with enough velocity to cut his face, not to mention that Tague said he was wounded right after the second shot.
-
This silly piece of fiction is indicative of your other arguments. Any fragment leaving JFK's head would have had to clear the limo's roll bar and windshield, travel several hundred feet while magically veering downward in midair, and then hit the curb with enough force to send concrete or metal streaking toward Tague with enough velocity to cut his face, not to mention that Tague said he was wounded right after the second shot.
Griffith,
Someone calling themselves Herb Huskr posted this at another forum a year ago:
There is some active discussion on another forum where I’m not a member about James Tague being hit, a curb mark, and what happened there.
This post is about some modeling and simulation results made awhile back evaluating a possibility to explain that Tague incident. I’ve not routinely discussed these details before because there is a back story that suggests that the modeling indicated how wrong I may have been with my initial gut feeling, and who wants to embarrass themselves by admitting they may have been misled by an erroneous gut-feeling bias.
The modeling was done a few of years back to try and prove this initial assumption:
A missing fragment from the z313 head shot could not have made it to Tague and created a shallow curb divot sending mortar/sand shards up and out, with some striking Tague in the cheek while he was standing nearby.
The envisioned scenario (initial gut feeling scenario) looked something like the following:
A disfigured lead, or lead with residual copper, bullet fragment flying forward escaped the limo from the third shot, at maybe 400 ft/sec, continued on to strike the curb with a compressive strike from a mostly horizontal trajectory, hitting at a reduced velocity around 200 ft/sec or so. This possibility was expected to be proven untenable and therefore likely wouldn’t happen.
Results:
Embarrassingly enough, the modeling predicted I would be wrong on every single account!
A fragment could have made it to Tague
The initial exit velocity would be more than twice the 400 ft/sec I was thinking
The final velocity would be even less than half the 200 ft/sec I was thinking
The angle at striking would be opposite, nearly vertical, instead of more horizontal like I thought
The curb strike likely presented a shearing force rather than the head-on compression force I expected
Talk about being wrong!
A crude curb-strike simulation was subsequently conducted to look at this because the predictions seemed so unusual.
Overall, the modeling and simulation indicated the scenario looked to be a real possibility, with a limo exiting fragment able to reach the curb by Tague and cause a spray of surface mortar that could hit him.
It is still possible the model is not accurate enough, or the fresh mark was not related to a bullet at all, but the modeling came up with numbers that were largely predictive of observations that others subsequently measured on such fragments, like what Lucian Haag found for fragment exit velocities in his simulated skull test shots experiments, and Carcano fragment ballistic coefficients.
Two options for base case trajectories for the incident are depicted on the attached graphs.
Based on the modeling and simulation, I now favor that a rogue fragment from the head shot caused the Tague incident.
I will try to make a link to a summary with more details for those interested in ballistics, etc.
The study details can be found here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CcnCy17Hwqqw3zBCK7ls8peA3DxmVzhk/view?fbclid=IwY2xjawMhX_FleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETE4VkU5OWFad0pmb1lWbEZuAR5CqzVfS_kwwhC_esko7HReWTqLEm4HwHGKLg7IekI23kvFroXG0TSxU8jJ7A_aem_AKz6PqzUnM04cOaEZOVC6g
[Emphasis added by T. Graves]
-
The zany theory that a fragment from the head shot hit Tague and/or hit the curb near Tague and sent a metal/concrete fragment streaking toward Tague is a perfect example of the kind of hilarious, strained speculation that WC apologists are often forced to float.
To get some idea of how ludicrous this theory is, I recommend reading my article "The Wounding of James Tague Refutes the Lone-Gunman Theory":
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QGE1Se8HuF99CToouKhKW0OSRprmspwX/view
I discuss this issue at much greater length in my book A Comforting Lie: The Myth that a Lone Gunman Killed President Kennedy.
Here's an excerpt from my article:
In addition, if the missile had been fired from the
sixth-floor window, the bullet would have approached
from the right rear and would have struck the head
at a downward angle of around 20 degrees. How would
a fragment from such a bullet have traveled upward
so as to clear both the roll bar and the windshield?
Could a fragment from the head shot have struck
Tague's face directly, that is, without hitting anything
else first? This suggestion is as problematic as the
theory that a fragment caused the mark on the curb.
For example, in order to have struck Tague's face, the
fragment still would have had to somehow fly over the
limousine's roll bar and windshield. Dr. Tom Canning,
the trajectory expert for the House Select Committee
on Assassinations, told the committee that the
windshield damage appeared to be too high to have
been caused by a fragment from the head-shot missile.
Yet, to accept the theory that a fragment from this
bullet somehow reached Tague, we would have to believe
that the fragment flew well above the damaged portions
of the windshield. In fact, it would have had to clear
the roll bar and the windshield. But if it had managed
to do this, how could it have gone on to strike the curb
and/or Tague with any appreciable force?
I should add that, according to the lone-gunman theory, any head-shot fragment would have come from the exit wound seen in the autopsy photos, and in those photos the exit wound is directly above the right ear, but Tague and the Tague curb mark were to the left of JFK. So not only would this magic fragment have had to somehow clear the roll bar and the windshield after coming from a bullet that supposedly struck at a downward angle of 20 degrees, but it would have had to magically veer leftward and downward after supposedly leaving the skull traveling upward and/or upward and rightward.
It is no wonder that WC staffers and the FBI did their best to try to ignore the Tague wounding. Luckily, they were unable to do so because Tague's case appeared in some newspapers. The Tague wounding was an added reason that WC staffer Arlen Specter had to concoct the single-bullet theory.
-
The zany theory that a fragment from the head shot hit Tague and/or hit the curb near Tague and sent a metal/concrete fragment streaking toward Tague is a perfect example of the kind of hilarious, strained speculation that WC apologists are often forced to float.
To get some idea of how ludicrous this theory is, I recommend reading my article "The Wounding of James Tague Refutes the Lone-Gunman Theory":
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QGE1Se8HuF99CToouKhKW0OSRprmspwX/view
I discuss this issue at much greater length in my book A Comforting Lie: The Myth that a Lone Gunman Killed President Kennedy.
Here's an excerpt from my article:
In addition, if the missile had been fired from the sixth-floor window, the bullet would have approached from the right rear and would have struck the head at a downward angle of around 20 degrees. How would a fragment from such a bullet have traveled upward so as to clear both the roll bar and the windshield? Could a fragment from the head shot have struck Tague's face directly, that is, without hitting anything else first? This suggestion is as problematic as the theory that a fragment caused the mark on the curb. For example, in order to have struck Tague's face, the
fragment still would have had to somehow fly over the limousine's roll bar and windshield. Dr. Tom Canning, the trajectory expert for the House Select Committee on Assassinations, told the committee that the windshield damage appeared to be too high to have been caused by a fragment from the head-shot missile. Yet, to accept the theory that a fragment from this bullet somehow reached Tague, we would have to believe that the fragment flew well above the damaged portions of the windshield. In fact, it would have had to clear the roll bar and the windshield. But if it had managed to do this, how could it have gone on to strike the curb and/or Tague with any appreciable force?
I should add that, according to the lone-gunman theory, any head-shot fragment would have come from the exit wound seen in the autopsy photos, and in those photos the exit wound is directly above the right ear, but Tague and the Tague curb mark were to the left of JFK. So not only would this magic fragment have had to somehow clear the roll bar and the windshield after coming from a bullet that supposedly struck at a downward angle of 20 degrees, but it would have had to magically veer leftward and downward after supposedly leaving the skull traveling upward and/or upward and rightward. It is no wonder that WC staffers and the FBI did their best to try to ignore the Tague wounding. Luckily, they were unable to do so because Tague's case appeared in some newspapers. The Tague wounding was an added reason that WC staffer Arlen Specter had to concoct the single-bullet theory.
Dear Michael "'Useful Idiot' or Worse" Griffith,
Your calling Huskr's theory "zany" doesn't invalidate it.
Your posting that lame excerpt from your article suggests that you haven't even read the eight-page article by Huskr that I provided to you in my earlier post.
Questions:
1) What percentage of the headshot bullet was found inside the limo? 60%? 70%?
2) If the dent in the chrome wasn't caused by a fragment from the headshot bullet, what caused it?
-- Tom
-
Dear Michael "'Useful Idiot' or Worse" Griffith, Your calling Huskr's theory "zany" doesn't invalidate it. Your posting that lame excerpt from your article suggests that you haven't even read the eight-page article by Huskr that I provided to you in my earlier post.
Huskr's theory is patently zany. Even Gerald Posner and Jim Moore long since abandoned the theory that a head-shot fragment caused the Tague curb mark and wounding. BTW, that silly theory was proposed long before Huskr came along.
I notice you ignored the point made in my article excerpt that NASA expert Dr. Thomas Canning admitted to the HSCA that the windshield damage appeared to be too high to have been caused by a fragment from the head shot. Canning was the Select Committee's trajectory expert, hired specifically to do a trajectory analysis. Yet, even he said the windshield damage did not seem to line up with a credible trajectory from the head shot.
I also noticed you ignored the point that any fragment from the head shot, according to your version of the shooting, would have exited from the alleged wound above the right ear and would have then had to clear the roll bar and the windshield. Huskr never explains how the bullet could have done this and still have hit the Tague curb. Again, even Posner and Moore don't buy Huskr's ludicrous theory.
Questions: 1) What percentage of the headshot bullet was found inside the limo? 60%? 70%?
I can tell you have no clue about the evidence relating to fragments and bullets found in the limousine. How about the deformed bullet that was found in the limo after it had arrived in DC and that was received by Dr. Young at the autopsy? How about the bullet that Secret Service agent Paul Landis recently admitted he found lodged in the back seat of the limo?
BTW, before Dr. Young went public with his knowledge of the deformed bullet, he checked with the Navy chief petty officer, Chief Mills, who found the bullet and who brought it to him, just to confirm that his account was accurate. What makes Young's disclosure so devastating is that for decades he assumed that the deformed bullet was fired by Oswald and was discussed in the Warren Report. He was surprised to later learn that the WC said nothing about the bullet, and only then did he come forward with his knowledge of the bullet. He was so naive that he even contacted Arlen Specter to try to find out why the WC did not mention the bullet!
I discuss Dr. Young's disclosure in my article "Extra Bullets and Missed Shots in Dealey Plaza":
https://safe.menlosecurity.com/doc/docview/viewer/docNA58EEBF7E9DE2b4727ab758453613131680210c55f6374b2cd4f8cac00aaa9cfe517234e42a8
Medical and science editor Milicent Cranor has written two good articles on Dr. Young's accounts:
https://whowhatwhy.org/politics/government-integrity/navy-doctor-bullet-found-jfks-limousine-never-reported/
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/bending-the-story-on-a-bent-bullet
2) If the dent in the chrome wasn't caused by a fragment from the headshot bullet, what caused it?
Oh, dear. Now this is curious Umm, FYI, many of your fellow WC apologists have doggedly denied that the chrome dent was caused by a bullet or fragment during the assassination. I have had several discussions with WC defenders who've claimed the dent was made before the assassination. And, also FYI, your beloved Warren Commission was the first one to float the idea that the chrome dent was made prior to the assassination.
Now, I certainly agree that the chrome dent was made during the shooting. Photos of the limo taken shortly before the assassination show no dent in the chrome strip above the windshield. Judging from its size and shape, the dent must have been made by a large fragment or a bullet. It could very well have been made by the bullet that Chief Mills and Chief Martinell found in the limo and gave to Dr. Young.
Given Canning's admission that the windshield damage did not appear to line up with a trajectory from the head shot, how do you get a bullet or fragment that supposedly exited from above the right ear to hit the chrome strip above the windshield? How? More of your voodoo and self-delusion?
BTW, FBI ballistics expert Robert Frazier told the WC that "if" the chrome dent was made during the shooting, it was made by a fragment "traveling at fairly high velocity." Uh-oh, this is a problem, because Frazier also admitted that the alleged murder weapon was a low-velocity rifle (3 H 414). (BTW, the Clark Panel said the head wounds were caused by a high-velocity bullet.)
-
So, I guess the Max Holland stuff about a shot from the sniper's nest hitting the signal light/support beam and deflecting into the curb near Tague has been abandoned? It's nice of the LN Community to Silently run away from a once heralded claim that never did have a shred of evidence to back it up.
-
To answer Tom's query seriously - what fun is that? - the most common complaint by CTers and LNers alike is that their antagonists are "closed-minded" fanatics who filter all arguments and evidence through a lens of preconception and will never be budged by anything. I must say, I share this perception.
AND YET, I myself am proof of the contrary! For at least 35 or 40 years my perspective was "How could ANYONE possibly think Oswald acted alone???" Go back 20 or so years and my posts on City-Data and then the Ed Forum were solidly, 100% CT-oriented.
Why was this? I was steeped in NOTHING BUT conspiracy literature, from Lifton on down. I lacked the evidence-evaluating and critical-thinking skills that I would hone over 40 years of legal practice.
What changed my mind? First and foremost, an in-depth study of Oswald the man - literally everything I could find. Suddenly, the LN narrative seemed a lot more plausible. Then, of course, I became more familiar with the LN literature and arguments and could see the gaping holes and absurdities in the CT narratives.
But what was really the key? This will be a problem for most of you, CTers and LNers alike: I HAD NO IDEOLOGICAL, POLITICAL OR PHILOSOPHICAL COMMITMENT OR AGENDA. JFK meant nothing to me. Who killed him meant nothing to me, other than an historical puzzle. The consequences of his death for the America of today didn't concern me. The JFKA was, and is, just an interesting puzzle, a real-world whodunnit. That's the problem I think most LNers and CTers have - they are wedded to some ideological or political agenda that REQUIRES a CT or LN perspective for reasons only marginally related to the JFKA.
-
The assassination of JFK was Not a "historical puzzle". JFK had the Deep State after him as well as Organized Crime. Trump currently has the Deep State and the World Drug Cartels trying to take him out. Learn from the past.
-
So, I guess the Max Holland stuff about a shot from the sniper's nest hitting the signal light/support beam and deflecting into the curb near Tague has been abandoned? It's nice of the LN Community to Silently run away from a once heralded claim that never did have a shred of evidence to back it up.
Comrade Storing,
People who, unlike you, can think rationally and scientifically, are willing to modify (and in some cases completely abandon) their hypotheses based on the introduction of new evidence.
Max Holland was right to point out that Oswald's first, missing-everything, shot occurred before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133. He thought it happened at hypothetical (as in not-caught-on-film-because-Zapruder-wasn't-filming-at-the-time) "Z-107," but Brian Roselle and Kenneth Scearce showed in a journal article published in 2020 that it was more likely at hypothetical "Z-124," as indicated, for example, by the fact that in Z-141, Rosemary Willis isn't looking at the limo passing by her, but has already begun looking back towards the TSBD.
https://www.acsr.org/post/estimating-occult-timing-of-surprise-gunshot-sounds-in-silent-film-via-observed-start-of-human-vol
And, as I've recently shown you, it's possible that James Tague was struck by a bullet fragment from the fatal head shot.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CcnCy17Hwqqw3zBCK7ls8peA3DxmVzhk/view?fbclid=IwY2xjawMhX_FleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETE4VkU5OWFad0pmb1lWbEZuAR5CqzVfS_kwwhC_esko7HReWTqLEm4HwHGKLg7IekI23kvFroXG0TSxU8jJ7A_aem_AKz6PqzUnM04cOaEZOVC6g
-- Tom
-
To answer Tom's query seriously - what fun is that? - the most common complaint by CTers and LNers alike is that their antagonists are "closed-minded" fanatics who filter all arguments and evidence through a lens of preconception and will never be budged by anything. I must say, I share this perception.
AND YET, I myself am proof of the contrary! For at least 35 or 40 years my perspective was "How could ANYONE possibly think Oswald acted alone???" Go back 20 or so years and my posts on City-Data and then the Ed Forum were solidly, 100% CT-oriented.
Why was this? I was steeped in NOTHING BUT conspiracy literature, from Lifton on down. I lacked the evidence-evaluating and critical-thinking skills that I would hone over 40 years of legal practice.
What changed my mind? First and foremost, an in-depth study of Oswald the man - literally everything I could find. Suddenly, the LN narrative seemed a lot more plausible. Then, of course, I became more familiar with the LN literature and arguments and could see the gaping holes and absurdities in the CT narratives.
But what was really the key? This will be a problem for most of you, CTers and LNers alike: I HAD NO IDEOLOGICAL, POLITICAL OR PHILOSOPHICAL COMMITMENT OR AGENDA. JFK meant nothing to me. Who killed him meant nothing to me, other than an historical puzzle. The consequences of his death for the America of today didn't concern me. The JFKA was, and is, just an interesting puzzle, a real-world whodunnit. That's the problem I think most LNers and CTers have - they are wedded to some ideological or political agenda that REQUIRES a CT or LN perspective for reasons only marginally related to the JFKA.
It's the evidence that convinces me that Oswald killed JFK. The rifle belonged to him. That rifle was used to kill JFK. There is zero evidence that anyone other than Oswald ever possessed that rifle. Oswald's nutty background is just consistent with the conclusion derived from the evidence. He could have been a choir boy, however, and the evidence still would link him to the crime. I have no reason to be biased against him. I would accept a conspiracy if that were what the evidence demonstrated. For example, I accept that John Wilkes Booth was involved in a conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln because the evidence proves it. Because a belief in a JFK conspiracy is not based on evidence, in fact the absence of evidence is often cited as more proof of a conspiracy pursuant to a cover up, it is impossible to use evidence or reason to sway a JFK CTer. It is a faith-based belief system. Like a religion. If we had a time machine, they would not accept what they could see with their own eyes.
-
It's the evidence that convinces me that Oswald killed JFK. The rifle belonged to him. That rifle was used to kill JFK. There is zero evidence that anyone other than Oswald ever possessed that rifle. Oswald's nutty background is just consistent with the conclusion derived from the evidence. He could have been a choir boy, however, and the evidence still would link him to the crime. I have no reason to be biased against him. I would accept a conspiracy if that were what the evidence demonstrated. For example, I accept that John Wilkes Booth was involved in a conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln because the evidence proves it. Because a belief in a JFK conspiracy is not based on evidence, in fact the absence of evidence is often cited as more proof of a conspiracy pursuant to a cover up, it is impossible to use evidence or reason to sway a JFK CTer. It is a faith-based belief system. Like a religion. If we had a time machine, they would not accept what they could see with their own eyes.
Plus, the fact that to believe the JFKA was a conspiracy is to believe that oodles and gobs of bad guys were involved in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, the planting of fake evidence, the getting-away, the altering of photos, films and x-rays, and the all-important (and evidently ongoing!) coverup.
-
Plus, the fact that to believe the JFKA was a conspiracy is to believe that oodles and gobs of bad guys were involved in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, the planting of fake evidence, the getting-away, the altering of photos, films and x-rays, and the all-important (and evidently ongoing!) coverup.
But this isn't inevitably true. Not every conspiracy theory requires oodles and gobs or any massive cover-up. That happens to be the currently prevailing theory because it fits the prevailing ideological/political agenda I described, in which the JFKA is just a chess piece. The more elaborate theories also appeal to the well-documented conspiracy-prone mindset.
I could quite easily - given anything resembling actual evidence and reasonable inferences - be convinced of a more realistic conspiracy. As I've noted previously, Hancock's and Boylan's latest book about Oswald is pretty much the LN narrative from A to Z, right up to (but not including) Dealey Plaza. As Hancock has made clear in his other books, he does believe in a conspiracy, but a much more limited and realistic one. I remain unconvinced because I believe it still requires the reinvention of Oswald, but I'm open-minded. The two huge problems for any conspiracy theory, as I've said previously, remain (1) the real Oswald and (2) Dealey Plaza. Those are two very big hurdles for any conspiracy theory.
When we encounter the genuinely close-minded fanatics on either side, LN or CT, I believe we are seeing ideological, political and psychological factors that are driving the bus but have little to do with the historical truth of the JFKA. For these folks, LN and CT alike, the JFKA is a symbol that transcends the actual event. It is, as Richard suggests, essentially a religion on both sides.
After spending the years and years and years I have spent dealing with the epistemology of religious belief and nonbelief, I am pretty confident of my analysis on this issue. Damn few people can really face up to what they believe - or tell themselves they believe - and why. Damn few people who say they just follow the evidence really do. That is why, if I were a gung-ho CTer, and perhaps even a gung-ho LNer, I would become very familiar with epistemology and the many, many studies of religious and conspiratorial belief - and then I'd take a long look in the mirror.
-
But this isn't inevitably true. Not every conspiracy theory requires oodles and gobs or any massive cover-up. That happens to be the currently prevailing theory because it fits the prevailing ideological/political agenda I described, in which the JFKA is just a chess piece. The more elaborate theories also appeal to the well-documented conspiracy-prone mindset.
I could quite easily - given anything resembling actual evidence and reasonable inferences - be convinced of a more realistic conspiracy. As I've noted previously, Hancock's and Boylan's latest book about Oswald is pretty much the LN narrative from A to Z, right up to (but not including) Dealey Plaza. As Hancock has made clear in his other books, he does believe in a conspiracy, but a much more limited and realistic one. I remain unconvinced because I believe it still requires the reinvention of Oswald, but I'm open-minded. The two huge problems for any conspiracy theory, as I've said previously, remain (1) the real Oswald and (2) Dealey Plaza. Those are two very big hurdles for any conspiracy theory.
When we encounter the genuinely close-minded fanatics on either side, LN or CT, I believe we are seeing ideological, political and psychological factors that are driving the bus but have little to do with the historical truth of the JFKA. For these folks, LN and CT alike, the JFKA is a symbol that transcends the actual event. It is, as Richard suggests, essentially a religion on both sides.
After spending the years and years and years I have spent dealing with the epistemology of religious belief and nonbelief, I am pretty confident of my analysis on this issue. Damn few people can really face up to what they believe - or tell themselves they believe - and why. Damn few people who say they just follow the evidence really do. That is why, if I were a gung-ho CTer, and perhaps even a gung-ho LNer, I would become very familiar with epistemology and the many, many studies of religious and conspiratorial belief - and then I'd take a long look in the mirror.
Dear Lance,
Although there are a few apparent anomalies attendant to the JFKA, I believe that the vast majority of the evidence indicates that a psychologically disturbed, self-described Marxist and former Marine sharpshooter/U-2 radar operator by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald (whom JFKA CT!!! John M. Newman, based on circumstantial-but-document-based evidence, posits was sent to Moscow in a planned-to-fail mole hunt by a KGB!!! "mole" in the CIA's mole-hunting Office of Security who just happened to be father-figure-requiring James Angleton's confidant, mentor, and mole-hunting superior*) killed JFK all by himself -- with or without logistical help from the KGB or the DGI.
To believe otherwise, i.e., that the assassination was a conspiracy by the evil, evil CIA or [fill in the blank] is to believe that oodles and gobs of bad guys were involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, the planting of false evidence, the getting-away, the altering of photos, films and x-rays, and . . . gasp . . . the all-important (and evidently continuing!) cover up.
-- Tom
*The only problem I have with Newman's theory is that, according to it, it took the "mole" 15 months to send Oswald to Moscow, as indicated by the fact that CIA's spy, GRU Lt. Col. Pyotr Popov, told his handler in West Berlin, (probable "mole") George Kisevalter, about the U-2 leak in April of 1958, and Oswald didn't start leaving active duty until July 1959.
Newman tries to minimize the implausibility of this long period of time by saying the "mole" first chose Oswald from other candidates and then insisted that he learn some Russian, but I see no Russian-language requirement for someone who is simply going to go to the American Embassy, announce his desire to terminate his American citizenship and announce to Consul Snyder and the hidden KGB microphones that he intends to commit espionage against the U.S.
-
To believe otherwise, i.e., that the assassination was a conspiracy by the evil, evil CIA or [fill in the blank] is to believe that oodles and gobs of bad guys were involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, the planting of false evidence, the getting-away, the altering of photos, films and x-rays, and . . . gasp . . . the all-important (and evidently continuing!) cover up.
It appears that my point went right past you. A conspiracy theory does not inevitably require any of that. A rational, plausible, real-world conspiracy theory would not have any of that.
Although the thread went nowhere - surprise, surprise - I have made clear what I think a rational, plausible, real-world conspiracy theory would look like:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4468.0.html
If and when I see one that is evidence-based, I'll listen.
-
Comrade Storing,
People who, unlike you, can think rationally and scientifically, are willing to modify (and in some cases completely abandon) their hypotheses based on the introduction of new evidence.
Max Holland was right to point out that Oswald's first, missing-everything, shot occurred before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133. He thought it happened at hypothetical (as in not-caught-on-film-because-Zapruder-wasn't-filming-at-the-time) "Z-107," but Brian Roselle and Kenneth Scearce showed in a journal article published in 2020 that it was more likely at hypothetical "Z-124," as indicated, for example, by the fact that in Z-141, Rosemary Willis isn't looking at the limo passing by her, but has already begun looking back towards the TSBD.
https://www.acsr.org/post/estimating-occult-timing-of-surprise-gunshot-sounds-in-silent-film-via-observed-start-of-human-vol
And, as I've recently shown you, it's possible that James Tague was struck by a bullet fragment from the fatal head shot.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CcnCy17Hwqqw3zBCK7ls8peA3DxmVzhk/view?fbclid=IwY2xjawMhX_FleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETE4VkU5OWFad0pmb1lWbEZuAR5CqzVfS_kwwhC_esko7HReWTqLEm4HwHGKLg7IekI23kvFroXG0TSxU8jJ7A_aem_AKz6PqzUnM04cOaEZOVC6g
-- Tom
So Holland gets a world wide broadcast to trumpet his Bogus LN Hypothesis and then he goes Harpo Marx when it gets dis-proven? The theory of Oswald standing upright and firing Downward through a 1/4 open window issa DQ right outta the blocks anyway. And please refrain from the "possible" stuff. It's also "possible" that there were shooter(s) all over Dealey Plaza. Let's not play that game.
-
So, Holland gets a world-wide broadcast to trumpet his Bogus LN Hypothesis and then he goes Harpo Marx when it gets dis-proven? The theory of Oswald standing upright and firing Downward through a 1/4 open window issa DQ right outta the blocks anyway.
Comrade Storing,
Max Holland DESERVED that world-wide BROADCAST to promote his correct IDEA that Zapruder PAUSED his filming of the MOTORCADE for SEVENTEEN seconds, that Oswald's FIRST, missing-everything SHOT occurred SHORTLY before Zapruder RESUMED filming AT Z-133, that the shot WAS, by definition, a steeply-downward-angled ONE, that the UNUSUAL ejection PATTERN of the three shells FOUND on the Sniper's Nest FLOOR, support the IDEA that Oswald was standing and awkwardly LEANING forward when he FIRED that first, missing-everything, SHOT, which IS, by THE way, supported by footage from the Robert Hughes CLIP as well as BY the fact that several WITNESSES reported that the first SHOT sounded somewhat MUFFLED compared to the second AND third shots.
ETC., ETC.
-- Tom
-
You have No Proof of specifically when the 1st shot was fired. Congratulations on your now qualifying for membership in the Max Holland Dumb Bunny Club.
-
You have No Proof of specifically when the 1st shot was fired. Congratulations on your now qualifying for membership in the Max Holland Dumb Bunny Club.
Dear Comrade STORING,
The FACT that JFK started consciously REACTING to the SOUNDS of the first SHOT by Z-144, the FACT that Jackie started consciously REACTING to said SOUNDS by Z-145, the FACT that JBC started consciously REACTING to said sounds by Z-151, the FACT that Nellie Connally started consciously REACTING to said sounds by Z-146, the FACT that Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman started consciously REACTING to said sounds by Z-148, the FACT that Secret Service Agent George Hickey started REACTING to said sounds by Z-144, and the fact that Rosemary Willis started REACTING to said sounds by Z-141, PLUS the FACT that assassination witness Marvin Faye Chism reported seeing a bullet hit near the passenger's side of the limo SHORTLY after it had turned onto Elm Street, etc., etc, when taken TOGETHER prove that a very EARLY, missing-EVERYTHING shot was FIRED before Zapruder had resumed FILMING at Z-133.
-- Tom
PS You never did answer my question:
How does your tinfoil-hat JFKA conspiracy theory belief that the evil, evil CIA or [fill in the blank] killed JFK tie in with your love of The Traitorous Orange Bird (rhymes with "Xxxx")?
-
For all you know they were reacting to the sound(s) of DPD motorcycle backfire(s). Like Max, you have No Proof. None.
-
For all you know they were reacting to the sound(s) of DPD motorcycle backfire(s). Like Max, you have No Proof. None.
DEAR Comrade Storing,
At LEAST you admit that those SEVEN people were CONSCIOULY reacting to the SAME loud sound that came from the direction of the TSBD. BY THE WAY, are you EVER going to answer my QUESTION: How does YOUR KGB-encouraged tinfoil-hat JFKA CONSPIRACY theory tie-in with your SUPPORT for The Traitorous Orange Bird (rhymes with "Xxxx")?
-
DEAR Comrade Storing,
At LEAST you admit that those SEVEN people were CONSCIOULY reacting to the SAME loud sound that came from the direction of the TSBD. BY THE WAY, are you EVER going to answer my QUESTION: How does YOUR KGB-encouraged tinfoil-hat JFKA CONSPIRACY theory tie-in with your SUPPORT for The Traitorous Orange Bird (rhymes with "Xxxx")?
People in a parade are constantly reacting to all kinds of "stimulus" around them. And they even react to silent "stimulus" such as a "hand wave", or a hanky being waved around. (The old lady near Willis). And this is also true of the SS who were "on edge" and/or "hung over".
-
People in a parade are constantly reacting to all kinds of "stimulus" around them. And they even react to silent "stimulus" such as a "hand wave", or a hanky being waved around. (The old lady near Willis). And this is also true of the SS who were "on edge" and/or "hung over".
Comrade Storing,
Did young Rosemary Willis abruptly stop running and ignore JFK and Jackie in the limo as they were passing by in order to look back towards the TSBD in Z-141 because she was hoping that someone would wave to her from up there?