JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Michael T. Griffith on January 16, 2026, 02:50:37 PM
-
The lone-gunman theory of the JFK assassination is an extremely fragile house of cards. If just one of the hundreds of credible accounts that lone-gunman theorists refuse to accept is true, the theory collapses. If just one of the items of evidence that lone-gunman theorists dismiss is true, the theory collapses. Here are just a few examples:
-- If the accounts of a bullet striking the grass near a manhole cover on the south side of Elm Street are valid, the lone-gunman theory collapses.
-- If the accounts and the photographic evidence that an unidentified federal agent recovered a bullet from the grass near the manhole cover are valid, the lone-gunman theory collapses.
The evidence that a bullet did indeed strike the grass near the manhole cover and was recovered is credible and convincing by any reasonable standard. See "Extra Bullets and Missed Shots in Dealey Plaza," https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WRwhDQ9HMydf5pICsHwgtkoNKw0YSO8T/view.
-- If Dr. James Young was correct when he reported that a misshapen bullet was recovered from JFK's limousine in DC and that he saw and handled the bullet, the lone-gunman theory collapses.
Dr. Young's account is credible and convincing by any reasonable standard. In fact, Dr. Young simply assumed the misshapen bullet was one of Oswald's alleged shots, and he assumed the bullet was discussed in the Warren Commission's (WC's) report. He only came forward with his account when he learned that the WC did not address the bullet. See "Extra Bullets and Missed Shots in Dealey Plaza," https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WRwhDQ9HMydf5pICsHwgtkoNKw0YSO8T/view. See also Milicent Cranor's article, “Navy Doctor: Bullet Found in JFK’s Limousine, and Never Reported,” https://whowhatwhy.org/politics/government-integrity/navy-doctor-bullet-found-jfks-limousine-never-reported/.
-- If the several eyewitness accounts that prove Oswald could not have been on the sixth floor during the shooting are valid, the lone-gunman theory collapses.
If this were virtually any other case, the eyewitness evidence that prohibits Oswald from being on the sixth floor during the shooting would be viewed as compelling. I recommend Barry Ernest's book The Girl on the Stairs. See also Joseph Green and James DiEugenio's extensive review of Ernest's book: https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/ernst-barry-the-girl-on-the-stairs. See also https://www.pennlive.com/entertainment/2016/11/harrisburg_man_appears_in_docu.html. And see also "Faulty Evidence: Problems with the Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald," https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R1CZaCZfLA5QFjTCHNINcKxTH4cBiPfw/view (pp. 27-30).
-- If the dozens of witnesses who reported seeing a large wound in the right-rear part of JFK's head were correct, the lone-gunman theory collapses. These witnesses included two of the Parkland nurses who cleaned JFK's head and packed the large wound with gauze after he was declared dead, a Secret Service agent who got a prolonged close-up look at JFK's head wound twice in the space of 10 hours on the day of the shooting, the three morticians who reassembled JFK's skull after the autopsy, a Dallas funeral home worker who held JFK's head in his hands while he helped place the body in the casket, the Parkland neurosurgeon who examined JFK's head when he entered the ER, several of the medical technicians at the autopsy, and the two FBI agents at the autopsy. One of the morticians and the FBI agents drew diagrams of JFK's wounds and placed the large head wound in the back of the head, several inches farther back on the head than the wound seen in the JFK autopsy photos.
-- If Dr. James Humes, the lead autopsy doctor at JFK's autopsy, was correct when he told JAMA that 2/3 of the right cerebrum were blasted out, the lone-gunman theory collapses.
Dr. Humes's statement has been confirmed by hard scientific evidence: multiple optical-density (OD) measurements of the JFK autopsy skull x-rays have established that the x-rays show about 2/3 of the right brain to be missing. Dr. Fred Hodges, one of the nation's leading radiologists in the 1970s, reported to the Rockefeller Commission that the AP autopsy x-ray shows "a goodly portion" of the right brain to be missing. We know that bits of JFK's brain were blown or fell onto 16 surfaces. We also know that Jackie Kennedy brought "a large chunk of brain" into the Parkland ER and handed it to Dr. Jenkins. Yet, the alleged autopsy brain photos show "less than" 1-2 ounces of brain tissue missing.
-- If the Zapruder film does in fact show reactions to at least six shots, the lone-gunman theory collapses.
See "Reactions to Six Shots in the Zapruder Film," https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nnp3Vch_KMOB_qufAhlQOCLTTS9jqNV0/view.
-- If Governor John Connally was correct when he insisted he was certain he was not hit before Z229, the lone-gunman theory collapses.
He most certainly was correct. See "Reactions to Six Shots in the Zapruder Film," https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nnp3Vch_KMOB_qufAhlQOCLTTS9jqNV0/view.
-- If, as gun experts claim, the dented shell found in the sixth-floor sniper's nest could not have been used to fire a bullet during the assassination, the lone-gunman theory collapses.
The fact that the dented shell could not have fired a bullet during the assassination is undeniable. See "The Dented Bullet Shell: Hard Evidence of Conspiracy in the JFK Assassination," https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ihue8a0GmN_Ptl38bPjpu1F99nqU0Z6f/view.
-
-- If, as gun experts claim, the dented shell found in the sixth-floor sniper's nest could not have been used to fire a bullet during the assassination, the lone-gunman theory collapses.
The fact that the dented shell could not have fired a bullet during the assassination is undeniable. See "The Dented Bullet Shell: Hard Evidence of Conspiracy in the JFK Assassination," https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ihue8a0GmN_Ptl38bPjpu1F99nqU0Z6f/view.
Not at all, laddie. The two-shot scenario is not only plausible but makes the LN scenario stronger. Think. ::) Your linked article, not unsurprisingly, misses the salient point.
-
Here are more examples:
-- If the Aldredge curb scar was caused by a bullet, the lone-gunman theory collapse.
See "Extra Bullets and Missed Shots in Dealey Plaza," https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WRwhDQ9HMydf5pICsHwgtkoNKw0YSO8T/view.
-- If a bullet to the back is the reason JFK is suddenly jolted forward and his hands and elbows are flung upward from Z226-232, the lone-gunman theory collapse.
-- If the two Parkland doctors and the Parkland nurse who said the throat wound was above the collar when JFK was brought into the ER, the lone-gunman theory collapses.
Their accounts are strongly supported by the fact that the slits in the front of JFK's shirt could not have been made by an exiting bullet.
-- If the shirt slits were not made by a bullet, the lone-gunman theory collapses.
The FBI lab experts initially did not identify the slits as the exit point for a bullet but said a fragment could have caused the slits. No metallic traces were found around the slits. No fabric was missing from the slits. There was no hole through JFK's tie.
See "JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible," https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view.
-- If the ammo that hit JFK's head was not FMJ ammo, the lone-gunman theory collapses.
The JFK autopsy skull x-rays and the skull x-rays from the WC's wound ballistics test clearly prove that the ammo was not FMJ ammo. No FMJ bullet would have left dozens of tiny fragments in the skull.
See "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wound," https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jYMrT9P4ab2BtENAqI_0dQSEY6IJWczi/view.
-- If the Lee Harvey Oswald who called the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City was an imposter, the lone-gunman theory collapses.
The call was recorded. FBI agents listed to the tape of the call. They confirmed that the voice on the tape was not Oswald's voice, a fact that we now know J. Edgar Hoover revealed to LBJ. Also, the caller spoke horrible Russian, but Oswald spoke fluent Russian.
-- If JFK's back wound had no exit point, the lone-gunman theory collapses.
We now have abundant evidence that the back wound had no exit point, and that on the night of the autopsy the autopsy doctors determined positively, beyond any possible doubt, through extensive probing with the chest organs removed, that the back wound was shallow and had no exit point. We now know that people near the autopsy table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity, proving the back wound had no exit point. We also now know that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound.
See "Debunking the 'Shoring' Theory as an Explanation for JFK's Throat Wound," https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/31929-debunking-the-shoring-theory-as-an-explanation-for-jfks-throat-wound/page/2/#findComment-587591.
See also "JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible," https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view.
-
And here a few more examples:
-- If Arnold Rowland was telling the truth when he insisted he saw two men with rifles on the TSBD’s sixth floor 5-15 minutes before the shooting, the lone-gunman theory collapses.
The WC bent over backward to accept Howard Brennan’s problematic, contradictory testimony, but they looked for any excuse, no matter how lame or petty, to reject Rowland’s testimony, even though Rowland’s wife confirmed that he had immediately told her about seeing a man holding a rifle on the west end of the sixth floor (i.e., the opposite end of the building from the sniper’s nest). In a display of glaring bias, the WC not only rejected Rowland’s testimony but went to great lengths to discredit him as a witness and as a person.
By any reasonable standard, Rowland was a credible witness who had no reason to lie about seeing two men with rifles on the sixth floor shortly before the shooting. See chapter 4, pp. 19-21, in Hasty Judgment: Why the JFK Case Is Not Closed, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JuHmh8_AXyoKFyCt0RPXEUoHDPy-qakz/view.
Several men who were in the county jail in the Criminal Courts Building also saw two men on the TSBD’s sixth floor shortly before the shooting. One of them was Johnny Powell. He said the men were handling a scope on a rifle. Powell logically assumed the men were security officers.
Ruby Henderson was another person in the plaza who saw two men on the Depository’s sixth floor shortly before the shooting. In agreement with Rowland, she said one of the men had a dark complexion.
Carolyn Walthers was another witness who saw two men on the TSBD’s sixth floor shortly before the shooting. She said one of the men had a rifle. In agreement with four other witnesses, she said one of the men was wearing a light-colored shirt (but Oswald wore a brown, rust-colored shirt to work that day, and was seen wearing that shirt in the second-floor lunchroom less than 90 seconds after the shooting). It is instructive to note that Walthers reported that FBI agents tried to get her to change her story.
Powell’s, Henderson’s, and Walthers’ accounts are discussed in “Overlooked Witnesses,” https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339748/.
-- If Secret Service agent Paul Landis was telling the truth when he reported, shortly before he died, that he found a virtually undamaged bullet in the back seat of JFK’s limo and placed it on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, the lone-gunman theory collapses.
Dr. James Robenalt, a historian who worked with Landis to prepare him for the publication of his disclosure, believes the disclosure “is really the most significant news in the assassination since 1963.”
When Landis came forward with his disclosure, he knew he was dying. He had no reason to fabricate such an account.
-- If the three pathologists at Methodist Hospital in Dallas who actually handled and examined the Harper Fragment were correct in identifying it as occipital bone, the lone-gunman theory collapses. Occipital bone is located only in the back of the skull.
One of those pathologists, Dr. A. B. Cairns, was the chief of pathology at Methodist Hospital. The two other pathologists were Dr. Jack Harper and Dr. Gerard Noteboom. All three identified the fragment as occipital bone. Their identification confirms the dozens of eyewitness accounts of a large hole in the right-rear part of JFK’s skull.
When Dr. David Mantik interviewed Dr. Noteboom in a recorded interview in November 1992, Dr. Noteboom confirmed that the Harper Fragment was occipital bone and that he actually held the fragment in his hands as he examined it.
Predictably, the Harper Fragment disappeared after the FBI gave it to Dr. George Burkley. We have the two FBI photos of the fragment, but not the fragment itself. Drs. Cairns, Harper, and Noteboom were the only pathologists who actually held the fragment in their hands and examined it, and all three said it was occipital bone.
Dr. David Mantik has confirmed that the fragment was occipital bone. See his detailed analyses of the Harper Fragment in his book JFK Assassination Paradoxes and The Final Analysis. See also the segments on the Harper Fragment in Dr. Mantik’s online articles “The JFK Autopsy Materials,” https://themantikview.org/pdf/The_JFK_Autopsy_Materials.pdf, and “The Medical Evidence Decoded,” https://themantikview.org/pdf/The_Medical_Evidence_Decoded.pdf.
By the way, Dr. John Ebersole, the radiologist at the autopsy, told the HSCA that one of the skull fragments that arrived late at the autopsy was “a large fragment of the occipital bone” (Testimony of John H. Ebersole, Medical Panel Meeting, HSCA, 3/11/78, p. 5).
-
-- If Secret Service agent Paul Landis was telling the truth when he reported, shortly before he died...
Where (and when) did you get the information that Paul Landis had died?
I haven't heard any news at all about Mr. Landis passing away, and I can't find anything about it on the Internet either (as of January 17-18, 2026).
-
Here is a fourth set of examples:
-- The problem of Oswald’s documented presence in the Depository’s second-floor lunchroom, with or without a Coke, within 90 seconds after the shooting is compounded by accounts that someone was in the sixth-floor window long after Oswald could not have been there.
Lillian Mooneyham, a clerk of the 95th District Court, watched the motorcade from windows in the Dallas Criminal Courts Building. She told the FBI that about four to five minutes after the shooting, “she looked up towards the sixth floor of the TSBD and observed the figure of a man standing in the sixth-floor window behind some cardboard boxes. This man appeared to Mrs. Mooneyham to be looking out of the window; however, the man was not close up to the window but was standing slightly back from it, so that Mrs. Mooneyham could not make out his features.”
Obviously, this man could not have been Oswald, and no policeman was in the sniper’s nest until at least 30 minutes later.
If Lillian Mooneyham wasn’t seeing things or wildly mistaken about when she saw the man in the sixth-floor window, the lone-gunman theory collapses.
The HSCA Photographic Evidence Panel (PEP) confirmed from the Dillard and Powell photos that boxes were being rearranged in the sixth-floor window “within two minutes after the last shot was fired” (6 HSCA 109-115; 4 HSCA 422-423). This is key photographic evidence that someone other than Oswald was in the sixth-floor window within two minutes after the shooting.
The few WC apologists who have addressed this crucial HSCA finding have floated the amateurish argument that the apparent movement of boxes is an optical illusion caused by a difference in perspective and sunlight in the two photos, specifically, that because the line of sight and sunlight are different in the photos, we are seeing different boxes in one photo than are visible in the other photo. However, the HSCA photographic experts specifically considered this explanation and rejected it (4 HSCA 422-423).
The most detailed analysis of the HSCA PEP’s historic finding on the post-assassination movement of boxes in the sniper’s nest is Barry Krusch’s 55-page analysis in his book Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald, Volume 3, pp. 25-70. Krusch shows beyond any doubt that the HSCA PEP experts were correct. He also shows that WC counsel David Belin recognized that the boxes in CE 482 (the Dillard photo) were not in the same position as the boxes in the police evidence photo of the sniper’s nest taken after 1:12 PM (CE 715).
-- If all the experts, including the HSCA PEP experts, who’ve concluded that the Zapruder film shows JFK reacting to a wound starting at right around Z200 and that this shot was fired at around Z186-190, the lone-gunman theory collapses.
Anyone who knows the basics of the JFK case knows that a gunman in the sixth-floor window would have had his view of JFK obstructed from Z166-207 by the intervening oak tree on the north side of Elm Street. This is one reason that the fiercest debate among the HSCA PEP members was over the conclusion that a shot was fired at Z186-190, but a solid majority of the PEP experts supported the finding, to their great credit.
Another indication that JFK was hit at around Z190 and began to react at around Z200 is that Jackie Kennedy, starting at about Z202, clearly notices that something is wrong with JFK. By Z202-204, Jackie has made a sudden sharp turn to the right, toward
her husband. When she reemerges into view at Z223, she is looking intently at
JFK. Obviously, her attention was drawn to him because the reaction that
he had begun at around Z200 had become more noticeable while the car was
behind the freeway sign.
Also, the HSCA PEP experts noted that a strong blur episode begins at around Z189.
Some Oswald-was-the-shooter researchers, recognizing the validity of the Z186-190 shot and JFK’s Z200-207 reaction to it, have suggested that the sixth-floor gunman fired this shot at Z186, during the split-second break in the oak tree's foliage. However, the gunman would have had only 1/18th of a second to aim and fire this shot, but the human eye requires 1/6th of a second to register and react to data. Even the WC admitted it was unlikely the alleged single assassin would have fired during the 56-millisecond break in the foliage at Z186.
For more information on the Z186-190 shot, see “Reactions to Six Shots in the Zapruder Film,” https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nnp3Vch_KMOB_qufAhlQOCLTTS9jqNV0/view.
See also Don Olson and Ralph Turner, “Photographic Evidence and the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy,” Journal of Forensic Sciences, 16:4, October 1971, pp. 399-419, http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/J%20Disk/Journal%20of%20Forensic%20Science/Item%2001.pdf
-
[...]
Dear Comrade Griffith,
How many evil, evil "Deep State" bad guys and bad gals do you figure were involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the planting of false evidence, the shooting, the getting-away, the altering of all of the Dealey Plaza films and photos / Bethesda photos and X-rays, and the all-important (and continuing!!!) cover up?
Thirty?
-- Tom
-
And here a few more examples:
-- If Arnold Rowland was telling the truth when he insisted he saw two men with rifles on the TSBD’s sixth floor 5-15 minutes before the shooting, the lone-gunman theory collapses.
The WC bent over backward to accept Howard Brennan’s problematic, contradictory testimony, but they looked for any excuse, no matter how lame or petty, to reject Rowland’s testimony, even though Rowland’s wife confirmed that he had immediately told her about seeing a man holding a rifle on the west end of the sixth floor (i.e., the opposite end of the building from the sniper’s nest). In a display of glaring bias, the WC not only rejected Rowland’s testimony but went to great lengths to discredit him as a witness and as a person.
By any reasonable standard, Rowland was a credible witness who had no reason to lie about seeing two men with rifles on the sixth floor shortly before the shooting. See chapter 4, pp. 19-21, in Hasty Judgment: Why the JFK Case Is Not Closed, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JuHmh8_AXyoKFyCt0RPXEUoHDPy-qakz/view.
Several men who were in the county jail in the Criminal Courts Building also saw two men on the TSBD’s sixth floor shortly before the shooting. One of them was Johnny Powell. He said the men were handling a scope on a rifle. Powell logically assumed the men were security officers.
Ruby Henderson was another person in the plaza who saw two men on the Depository’s sixth floor shortly before the shooting. In agreement with Rowland, she said one of the men had a dark complexion.
Carolyn Walthers was another witness who saw two men on the TSBD’s sixth floor shortly before the shooting. She said one of the men had a rifle. In agreement with four other witnesses, she said one of the men was wearing a light-colored shirt (but Oswald wore a brown, rust-colored shirt to work that day, and was seen wearing that shirt in the second-floor lunchroom less than 90 seconds after the shooting). It is instructive to note that Walthers reported that FBI agents tried to get her to change her story.
Powell’s, Henderson’s, and Walthers’ accounts are discussed in “Overlooked Witnesses,” https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339748/.
-- If Secret Service agent Paul Landis was telling the truth when he reported, shortly before he died, that he found a virtually undamaged bullet in the back seat of JFK’s limo and placed it on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, the lone-gunman theory collapses.
Dr. James Robenalt, a historian who worked with Landis to prepare him for the publication of his disclosure, believes the disclosure “is really the most significant news in the assassination since 1963.”
When Landis came forward with his disclosure, he knew he was dying. He had no reason to fabricate such an account.
-- If the three pathologists at Methodist Hospital in Dallas who actually handled and examined the Harper Fragment were correct in identifying it as occipital bone, the lone-gunman theory collapses. Occipital bone is located only in the back of the skull.
One of those pathologists, Dr. A. B. Cairns, was the chief of pathology at Methodist Hospital. The two other pathologists were Dr. Jack Harper and Dr. Gerard Noteboom. All three identified the fragment as occipital bone. Their identification confirms the dozens of eyewitness accounts of a large hole in the right-rear part of JFK’s skull.
When Dr. David Mantik interviewed Dr. Noteboom in a recorded interview in November 1992, Dr. Noteboom confirmed that the Harper Fragment was occipital bone and that he actually held the fragment in his hands as he examined it.
Predictably, the Harper Fragment disappeared after the FBI gave it to Dr. George Burkley. We have the two FBI photos of the fragment, but not the fragment itself. Drs. Cairns, Harper, and Noteboom were the only pathologists who actually held the fragment in their hands and examined it, and all three said it was occipital bone.
Dr. David Mantik has confirmed that the fragment was occipital bone. See his detailed analyses of the Harper Fragment in his book JFK Assassination Paradoxes and The Final Analysis. See also the segments on the Harper Fragment in Dr. Mantik’s online articles “The JFK Autopsy Materials,” https://themantikview.org/pdf/The_JFK_Autopsy_Materials.pdf, and “The Medical Evidence Decoded,” https://themantikview.org/pdf/The_Medical_Evidence_Decoded.pdf.
By the way, Dr. John Ebersole, the radiologist at the autopsy, told the HSCA that one of the skull fragments that arrived late at the autopsy was “a large fragment of the occipital bone” (Testimony of John H. Ebersole, Medical Panel Meeting, HSCA, 3/11/78, p. 5).
MG: If Arnold Rowland was telling the truth when he insisted he saw two men with rifles on the TSBD’s sixth floor 5-15 minutes before the shooting, the lone-gunman theory collapses.[...]By any reasonable standard, Rowland was a credible witness
In his testimony, Rowland makes a number of claims about himself that are, shall we say...interesting. These claims were interesting enough that it triggered a Secret Service background check. The Secret Service found that Rowland's extraordinary claims about himself were BS, and that he had a reputation as being habitually untruthful.
MG: Ruby Henderson was another person in the plaza who saw two men on the Depository’s sixth floor shortly before the shooting
Ruby Henderson said "she saw two men on one of the upper floors of the building." IIRC she never said exactly what floor.
MG: Carolyn Walthers was another witness who saw two men on the TSBD’s sixth floor shortly before the shooting.
She said that the two men she saw were on the fourth or fifth floor. She was "positive this window was not as high as the sixth floor."
If the three pathologists at Methodist Hospital in Dallas who actually handled and examined the Harper Fragment were correct in identifying it as occipital bone, the lone-gunman theory collapses. Occipital bone is located only in the back of the skull.
If the Harper fragment were part of the occipital bone, then we should see a substantial portion of the cruciform eminence on its inner surface. But there is no trace of cruciform eminence to be found on the Harper fragment. Further, the inner surface of the Harper fragment features two prominent vascular grooves. The Parietal and Temporal bone have such grooves, but the Occipital bone does not. Dr Joseph Riley, a neuroanatomist, summed it up this way: "simply put, occipital bone doesn't look like the [Harper Fragment], but parietal bone does."
-
Here is a fourth set of examples:
-- The problem of Oswald’s documented presence in the Depository’s second-floor lunchroom, with or without a Coke, within 90 seconds after the shooting is compounded by accounts that someone was in the sixth-floor window long after Oswald could not have been there.
Lillian Mooneyham, a clerk of the 95th District Court, watched the motorcade from windows in the Dallas Criminal Courts Building. She told the FBI that about four to five minutes after the shooting, “she looked up towards the sixth floor of the TSBD and observed the figure of a man standing in the sixth-floor window behind some cardboard boxes. This man appeared to Mrs. Mooneyham to be looking out of the window; however, the man was not close up to the window but was standing slightly back from it, so that Mrs. Mooneyham could not make out his features.”
Obviously, this man could not have been Oswald, and no policeman was in the sniper’s nest until at least 30 minutes later.
If Lillian Mooneyham wasn’t seeing things or wildly mistaken about when she saw the man in the sixth-floor window, the lone-gunman theory collapses.
The HSCA Photographic Evidence Panel (PEP) confirmed from the Dillard and Powell photos that boxes were being rearranged in the sixth-floor window “within two minutes after the last shot was fired” (6 HSCA 109-115; 4 HSCA 422-423). This is key photographic evidence that someone other than Oswald was in the sixth-floor window within two minutes after the shooting.
The few WC apologists who have addressed this crucial HSCA finding have floated the amateurish argument that the apparent movement of boxes is an optical illusion caused by a difference in perspective and sunlight in the two photos, specifically, that because the line of sight and sunlight are different in the photos, we are seeing different boxes in one photo than are visible in the other photo. However, the HSCA photographic experts specifically considered this explanation and rejected it (4 HSCA 422-423).
The most detailed analysis of the HSCA PEP’s historic finding on the post-assassination movement of boxes in the sniper’s nest is Barry Krusch’s 55-page analysis in his book Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald, Volume 3, pp. 25-70. Krusch shows beyond any doubt that the HSCA PEP experts were correct. He also shows that WC counsel David Belin recognized that the boxes in CE 482 (the Dillard photo) were not in the same position as the boxes in the police evidence photo of the sniper’s nest taken after 1:12 PM (CE 715).
-- If all the experts, including the HSCA PEP experts, who’ve concluded that the Zapruder film shows JFK reacting to a wound starting at right around Z200 and that this shot was fired at around Z186-190, the lone-gunman theory collapses.
Anyone who knows the basics of the JFK case knows that a gunman in the sixth-floor window would have had his view of JFK obstructed from Z166-207 by the intervening oak tree on the north side of Elm Street. This is one reason that the fiercest debate among the HSCA PEP members was over the conclusion that a shot was fired at Z186-190, but a solid majority of the PEP experts supported the finding, to their great credit.
Another indication that JFK was hit at around Z190 and began to react at around Z200 is that Jackie Kennedy, starting at about Z202, clearly notices that something is wrong with JFK. By Z202-204, Jackie has made a sudden sharp turn to the right, toward
her husband. When she reemerges into view at Z223, she is looking intently at
JFK. Obviously, her attention was drawn to him because the reaction that
he had begun at around Z200 had become more noticeable while the car was
behind the freeway sign.
Also, the HSCA PEP experts noted that a strong blur episode begins at around Z189.
Some Oswald-was-the-shooter researchers, recognizing the validity of the Z186-190 shot and JFK’s Z200-207 reaction to it, have suggested that the sixth-floor gunman fired this shot at Z186, during the split-second break in the oak tree's foliage. However, the gunman would have had only 1/18th of a second to aim and fire this shot, but the human eye requires 1/6th of a second to register and react to data. Even the WC admitted it was unlikely the alleged single assassin would have fired during the 56-millisecond break in the foliage at Z186.
For more information on the Z186-190 shot, see “Reactions to Six Shots in the Zapruder Film,” https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nnp3Vch_KMOB_qufAhlQOCLTTS9jqNV0/view.
See also Don Olson and Ralph Turner, “Photographic Evidence and the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy,” Journal of Forensic Sciences, 16:4, October 1971, pp. 399-419, http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/J%20Disk/Journal%20of%20Forensic%20Science/Item%2001.pdf
BTW, all three volumes of Barry Krusch's book Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald are available online in PDF format. He has combined all three volumes into a single PDF file online. In the PDF version, his analysis of the HSCA PEP's conclusion that boxes were rearranged within two minutes after the shooting is on pp. 657-690. Here's the link:
https://krusch.com/books/Impossible_Case_Against_Lee_Harvey_Oswald.pdf
-
[...]
Dear Comrade Griffith,
Is this a full-time job for you, or just part-time?
-- Tom
-
Michael, like myself, is a veritable Rennaissance man of Weirdness, to wit:
https://sites.google.com/view/realissueshomepage/home?authuser=0
We share interests in Theology, Intelligent Design, the Shroud of Turin and, apparently, UFOs. We differ in his enthusiasm for Joseph Smith and Mormonism (although this is likewise one of my areas of intensive study just because it is indeed Weird), his conspiratorial views on the Civil War and Lincoln assassination (no interest, sorry), of Pearl Harbor as a false flag operation (I've read about it but remain unconvinced) and, of course, of the JFKA. I see no evidence on Michael's part of what is probably my overarching interest - i.e., anomalous phenomena, particularly those relating to the possible survival of consciousness after death and, indeed, the nature of consciousness itself.
Michael, like moi, is clearly highly intellgent and highly educated. His writings in our overlapping areas of interest are nothing goofy even if I'm not always in complete agreement.
Over the course of my 60+ year journey through the halls of Weirdness, I have at various times held what I call Gee-Whiz True Believer positions. Always, however, as I have become better-informed and more adept at critical thinking, my True Believerism has melted away. This is true even of the spiritual beliefs that are the foundation of my life. I still hold many Believer positions with which an arch-debunker like Michael Shermer (with whom I've corresponded) would disagree, but I don't hold any that he would dismiss as flat-out irrational or completely lacking in evidence.
This is true of my JFKA journey like everything else: From "Gee-Whiz True Believer CTer" to "No Way Jose LNer" to "Oh, probably it was Oswald alone, but he may well have been encouraged by fellow Castroites and possibly could have been an unwitting participant in a Mafia hit." As in all areas of Weirdness, I can live with the inevitable uncertainty and ambiguity. I even retain a kernel of doubt about my own most startling anomalous experiences.
Which is what befuddles me with MTG's voluminous work on the JFKA: It's self-evidently silly, Gee-Whiz True Believer-level stuff at its worst. It isn't going to resonate with anyone this side of a fellow Gee-Whiz True Believer CTer. Instead of his journey paralleling my own, at least a bit in the direction of rationality, Michael just seems to descend deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole and to be completely oblivious of this reality.
How do we explain this? Truly, I have no idea. It's like some Conspiracy Virus takes hold and cannot be cured. But then, how did I cure it? Not through any conscious effort, but simply by becoming better-informed about the JFKA itself, about critical-thinking and epistemology in general, and about the fallacies to which a conspiracy-oriented mindset like my own and Michael's is prone. The same applies to my evolution from Gee-Whiz True Believer to Slightly Skeptical Believer (or in some cases Non-Believer) across many areas of Weirdness. My decades as a lawyer certainly helped, but they are surely not the sole explanation.
-
Michael, like myself, is a veritable Rennaissance man of Weirdness, to wit:
https://sites.google.com/view/realissueshomepage/home?authuser=0
We share interests in Theology, Intelligent Design, the Shroud of Turin and, apparently, UFOs. We differ in his enthusiasm for Joseph Smith and Mormonism (although this is likewise one of my areas of intensive study just because it is indeed Weird), his conspiratorial views on the Civil War and Lincoln assassination (no interest, sorry), of Pearl Harbor as a false flag operation (I've read about it but remain unconvinced) and, of course, of the JFKA. I see no evidence on Michael's part of what is probably my overarching interest - i.e., anomalous phenomena, particularly those relating to the possible survival of consciousness after death and, indeed, the nature of consciousness itself.
Michael, like moi, is clearly highly intellgent and highly educated. His writings in our overlapping areas of interest are nothing goofy even if I'm not always in complete agreement.
Over the course of my 60+ year journey through the halls of Weirdness, I have at various times held what I call Gee-Whiz True Believer positions. Always, however, as I have become better-informed and more adept at critical thinking, my True Believerism has melted away. This is true even of the spiritual beliefs that are the foundation of my life. I still hold many Believer positions with which an arch-debunker like Michael Shermer (with whom I've corresponded) would disagree, but I don't hold any that he would dismiss as flat-out irrational or completely lacking in evidence.
This is true of my JFKA journey like everything else: From "Gee-Whiz True Believer CTer" to "No Way Jose LNer" to "Oh, probably it was Oswald alone, but he may well have been encouraged by fellow Castroites and possibly could have been an unwitting participant in a Mafia hit." As in all areas of Weirdness, I can live with the inevitable uncertainty and ambiguity. I even retain a kernel of doubt about my own most startling anomalous experiences.
Which is what befuddles me with MTG's voluminous work on the JFKA: It's self-evidently silly, Gee-Whiz True Believer-level stuff at its worst. It isn't going to resonate with anyone this side of a fellow Gee-Whiz True Believer CTer. Instead of his journey paralleling my own, at least a bit in the direction of rationality, Michael just seems to descend deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole and to be completely oblivious of this reality.
How do we explain this? Truly, I have no idea. It's like some Conspiracy Virus takes hold and cannot be cured. But then, how did I cure it? Not through any conscious effort, but simply by becoming better-informed about the JFKA itself, about critical-thinking and epistemology in general, and about the fallacies to which a conspiracy-oriented mindset like my own and Michael's is prone. The same applies to my evolution from Gee-Whiz True Believer to Slightly Skeptical Believer (or in some cases Non-Believer) across many areas of Weirdness. My decades as a lawyer certainly helped, but they are surely not the sole explanation.
I think the difference is that an open-minded attitude allows some of us to evolve; while others have closed their minds to anything other than what they want to believe in…
(https://i.vgy.me/DpALud.png)
-
I think what Charles says is on the right track. Across the entire spectrum of Weirdness, as well as political and religious beliefs (both being their own species of Weirdness!), confirmation bias is surely the most difficult pitfall to avoid.
In many areas - the JFKA, UFOs, crop circles, poltergeists, whatever - I don't think I have any confirmation bias at all. I merely find these subjects interesting, but I don't particularly care what the explanation turns out to be or have any great need for a particular explanation to be true.
With something like the survival of consciousness after death, or the existence of a deity - well, yes, I do have much more of a visceral or emotional involvement and thus a stronger confirmation bias. I try to be doubly careful in reaching convictions in these areas, which is why in discussions and debates with Gee-Whiz True Believer fanatics I am often accused of being a skeptic or debunker when this is not true at all (except in the sense in which everyone should remain a bit skeptical of his own most cherished beliefs). Based on truly vast amounts of study and a fair amount of experience, I have arrived at quite strong convictions in these areas - but not to the point of losing rationality or being unable to see the countervailing arguments.
It's really difficult for me to see how someone would have a strong confirmation bias insofar as the JFKA is concerned. But people clearly do - on both sides of the debate, LN and CT alike. What would be the deep need for the LN narrative or any conspiracy theory to be true, to the extent of this need overwhelming the ability to think rationally? The answer has to be that the JFKA is a critical cog in one's worldview. The explanation for the JFKA must to be "X," and "X" will inevitably mesh with one's overarching worldview. It is in fact the overarching worldview that is determining what "X" will be. I think this has to be the explanation when we see a fanatical LNer or CTer who is wedded to his position like a religious fundie and who regards anything to the contrary as practically a personal insult. You're not just challenging his position on the JFKA; you're challenging who he is, what he thinks the world is all about.
And yet ... can confirmation bias really be the explanation when we see someone as intelligent and educated as Michael say the preposterous things he says in regard to the JFKA? As far as I can tell, he says nothing comparably preposterous in his writings about Mormonism, Intellgent Design, the Civil War or the Shroud of Turin. He has to know at some level that the conspiracy he posits is a complete fantasy, impossible in the real world.
I'm thoroughly puzzled. If I were to give him and those like him more credit than "they simply lose the ability to think rationally when it comes to the JFKA," I would say that making these preposterous claims must serve some agenda that isn't clear to me. "I'm just going to shovel so much conspiracy sh*t that sooner or later they'll have to reopen the investigation." Maybe, but this seems a stretch as an explanation for the amount of time and effort that Michael puts into his conspiracy sh*t.
It's a puzzle! Michael, of course, would say he simply follows the evidence and applies the same critical-thinking skills to the JFKA that he applies to his other interests and that the LNers and even I are the ones being ruled by our confirmation biases. He even categorizes me as a fanatical LNer because there can be no shades of gray in the war of Good (CT) versus Evil (LN) in which he sees himself as being engaged.
I remember a debate on some religion forum where atheists made the argument that only magical-thinking dolts believe in a deity. Wait, I said, many of the greatest philosophers, scientists and other academics who have ever lived, right up to the level of Nobel Laureates, have been and are devout theists. Do you seriously think they abandon the critical-thinking skills that have carried them to the pinnacles of their fields and turn into magical-thinking dolts when it comes to their assessment of theism versus atheism? "Yes, we do," came the predictable answer. "They are victims of their confirmation biases." (But the atheists, you see, are not! They are immune to confirmation biases! And on it goes ...)
-
BTW, all three volumes of Barry Krusch's book Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald are available online in PDF format. He has combined all three volumes into a single PDF file online. In the PDF version, his analysis of the HSCA PEP's conclusion that boxes were rearranged within two minutes after the shooting is on pp. 657-690. Here's the link:
https://krusch.com/books/Impossible_Case_Against_Lee_Harvey_Oswald.pdf
Barry Krusch used to post here in this forum. He was able to get staff at the National Archives to take photographs of the three WCC shells that were found in the sniper's nest and then send them to him. He asked them to examine the shells and to point out any marks or initials scribed on them. Mr. Krusch made a big deal out of the fact that the shells were apparently missing marks of some those who he maintained should have marked it, including those of Carl Day. The NARA staff never saw Day's mark on any of them and neither did Krusch. Mr Krusch was kind enough to make those images available to anyone who wished to download them off his site. Carl Day himself was unable to find his mark on one of the shells during his WC testimony. He was successful in doing so in June 1964, But he needed to use magnification under enhanced lighting to do so. In the images that Krusch received from NARA, George Doughty's mark is visible on one of the shells and FBI Agent Doyle's is visible on two. That's what I recall anyway. Day's can be made out on one of them. That fact threw a wrench into the gears of Krusch's machine.
-
I think what Charles says is on the right track. Across the entire spectrum of Weirdness, as well as political and religious beliefs (both being their own species of Weirdness!), confirmation bias is surely the most difficult pitfall to avoid.
In many areas - the JFKA, UFOs, crop circles, poltergeists, whatever - I don't think I have any confirmation bias at all. I merely find these subjects interesting, but I don't particularly care what the explanation turns out to be or have any great need for a particular explanation to be true.
With something like the survival of consciousness after death, or the existence of a deity - well, yes, I do have much more of a visceral or emotional involvement and thus a stronger confirmation bias. I try to be doubly careful in reaching convictions in these areas, which is why in discussions and debates with Gee-Whiz True Believer fanatics I am often accused of being a skeptic or debunker when this is not true at all (except in the sense in which everyone should remain a bit skeptical of his own most cherished beliefs). Based on truly vast amounts of study and a fair amount of experience, I have arrived at quite strong convictions in these areas - but not to the point of losing rationality or being unable to see the countervailing arguments.
It's really difficult for me to see how someone would have a strong confirmation bias insofar as the JFKA is concerned. But people clearly do - on both sides of the debate, LN and CT alike. What would be the deep need for the LN narrative or any conspiracy theory to be true, to the extent of this need overwhelming the ability to think rationally? The answer has to be that the JFKA is a critical cog in one's worldview. The explanation for the JFKA must to be "X," and "X" will inevitably mesh with one's overarching worldview. It is in fact the overarching worldview that is determining what "X" will be. I think this has to be the explanation when we see a fanatical LNer or CTer who is wedded to his position like a religious fundie and who regards anything to the contrary as practically a personal insult. You're not just challenging his position on the JFKA; you're challenging who he is, what he thinks the world is all about.
And yet ... can confirmation bias really be the explanation when we see someone as intelligent and educated as Michael say the preposterous things he says in regard to the JFKA? As far as I can tell, he says nothing comparably preposterous in his writings about Mormonism, Intellgent Design, the Civil War or the Shroud of Turin. He has to know at some level that the conspiracy he posits is a complete fantasy, impossible in the real world.
I'm thoroughly puzzled. If I were to give him and those like him more credit than "they simply lose the ability to think rationally when it comes to the JFKA," I would say that making these preposterous claims must serve some agenda that isn't clear to me. "I'm just going to shovel so much conspiracy sh*t that sooner or later they'll have to reopen the investigation." Maybe, but this seems a stretch as an explanation for the amount of time and effort that Michael puts into his conspiracy sh*t.
It's a puzzle! Michael, of course, would say he simply follows the evidence and applies the same critical-thinking skills to the JFKA that he applies to his other interests and that the LNers and even I are the ones being ruled by our confirmation biases. He even categorizes me as a fanatical LNer because there can be no shades of gray in the war of Good (CT) versus Evil (LN) in which he sees himself as being engaged.
I remember a debate on some religion forum where atheists made the argument that only magical-thinking dolts believe in a deity. Wait, I said, many of the greatest philosophers, scientists and other academics who have ever lived, right up to the level of Nobel Laureates, have been and are devout theists. Do you seriously think they abandon the critical-thinking skills that have carried them to the pinnacles of their fields and turn into magical-thinking dolts when it comes to their assessment of theism versus atheism? "Yes, we do," came the predictable answer. "They are victims of their confirmation biases." (But the atheists, you see, are not! They are immune to confirmation biases! And on it goes ...)
Do you think that there is a way for folks to try to separate the JFKA from their worldview, make it a “less critical cog” in their thinking. Perhaps they could try to just consider the JFKA an arbitrary abnormality. I know that when I simply opened my mind and thought that maybe there was a chance that the investigators, etc actually involved in the investigation and reporting got it (mostly) right, I began to consider things differently and eventually converted from believing that there “must have been a conspiracy” to seeing that there really doesn’t appear to be any credible evidence of a conspiracy. But I believe that I do remain open to being able to objectively consider any new evidence of a conspiracy that might arise.
-
Do you think that there is a way for folks to try to separate the JFKA from their worldview, make it a “less critical cog” in their thinking. Perhaps they could try to just consider the JFKA an arbitrary abnormality. I know that when I simply opened my mind and thought that maybe there was a chance that the investigators, etc actually involved in the investigation and reporting got it (mostly) right, I began to consider things differently and eventually converted from believing that there “must have been a conspiracy” to seeing that there really doesn’t appear to be any credible evidence of a conspiracy. But I believe that I do remain open to being able to objectively consider any new evidence of a conspiracy that might arise.
An anomaly-replete arbitrary anomaly that the KGB has "made hay" from -- e.g., Comrade Oliver Stone's self-described mythological ("to counter the myth of the Warren Report") film, "JFK" -- from Day One in its 1959-on effort to get us to tear ourselves apart.
-
Do you think that there is a way for folks to try to separate the JFKA from their worldview, make it a “less critical cog” in their thinking. Perhaps they could try to just consider the JFKA an arbitrary abnormality. I know that when I simply opened my mind and thought that maybe there was a chance that the investigators, etc actually involved in the investigation and reporting got it (mostly) right, I began to consider things differently and eventually converted from believing that there “must have been a conspiracy” to seeing that there really doesn’t appear to be any credible evidence of a conspiracy. But I believe that I do remain open to being able to objectively consider any new evidence of a conspiracy that might arise.
At the risk of sounding like an insufferable know-it-all - which I am, of course, but I hate to sound like one :D - I think it's virtually impossible in this day and age. These days, it's a combination of (1) strong confirmation bias combined with (2) the ability to live in an echo chamber of folks who continually reinforce that confirmation bias thanks to the internet and all forms of social media. Across the entire spectrum of political, religious and weirdness beliefs, huge numbers of people are essentially cultists. They would literally have to be deprogrammed the way someone is deprogrammed out of the Moonies or Scientology - no easy task. The cult comes to define these individuals and serves as a very comforting substitute family.
I started out my religious journey in a fundie organization that many people would describe as cult-like, to the extent of entering a graduate seminary. I dropped out after a year because the light bulb went on that fast: No one in his right mind could believe this stuff. We're all just pretending in order to fit in. Why did I have that epiphany? I really don't know. Maybe I've been blessed or cursed with the "ultra-rational gene." That epiphany didn't cause me to abandon the entire enterprise but launched me on a l-o-n-g quest for what I actually could and did believe. So now, like any rational person, I worship a little plastic figurine of Sai Baba that I keep on the dashboard of my car. :D
I truly have no answers. Across the entire spectrum of political, religious and weirdness beliefs, I have somehow deprogrammed myself (or at least kid myself that I have) through intense study and thought and the good old rational gene eventually kicking in. I have no real clue as to what is going on with someone like Michael or his LN-fanatic counterpart. But these days there are Michaels everywhere, not just the JFKA community by any means. As a veteran of perhaps 40 internet forums - eventually banned from all of them and proud of it, by God! :D - I've been down this road again and again with Gee-Whiz True Believers of every stripe. (The Ed Forum, to its credit, was the only one from which I self-banned to wild applause.)
Ones like Michael are the most puzzling because he is clearly very intelligent, very educated and capable of rational and non-wacky thought in other areas. But when it comes to the JFKA, he posts stuff that is literally the equivalent of "The earth is flat" or "King Charles is a reptilian alien." When he is called out on this, he just digs in his heels even deeper. When his absurdities are factually exposed, he just moves on to the next absurdity without missing a beat. Maybe it's some combination of conspiracy-prone mindset, confirmation bias, huge ego, self-amusment and hidden agenda that has hardened into a one-man MTG Cult. Those whose minds are simply not tracking in the channels of normality are more obvious and not nearly as interesting.
"Stay thirsty, my friends."
(https://saibabavartkatha.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/sai_baba_qg17_l4.jpg)
-
I would add, while my wife is making the oatmeal: The JFKA debate is essentially a religious debate. There will NEVER be a definitive answer. There will ALWAYS be uncertainty and ambiguity. The LN narrative has X% probability of being correct. Each one of the myriad conspiracy theories has X% probability of being correct. You simply have to go through your own little Bayesian analysis and reach some level of conviction: OK, I my conviction is that the LN narrative (i.e., my version of it) has a 60% probability of being correct, while Oswald and some tiny cadre of fellow Castroites has a 26% probability and a Mafia hit with Oswald as a participating patsy has 14% probabilty. Then you study to revise these percentages as best you can and live with the inevitable uncertainty and ambiguity.
In any religious debate, what drives the Gee-Whiz True Believers (of every stripe) absolutely mad is the suggestion that there can be any uncertainty and ambiguity: No, we KNOW the LN narrative is correct! No, we KNOW the CIA did it! And we will shout you down if you believe otherwise because the LN or CT narrative defines who we are and how we view the world. Been there, done that.
Apologies to Sai Baba. I confused him with the Most Interesting Man in the World.
"Stay thirsty, my friends."
(https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod/images/701/most-interesting-man-goldsmith-1504044751.jpg?resize=640:*)
-
Still more examples:
-- If Silvia and Annie Odio were not mistaken, the lone-gunman theory collapses.
In September 1963, two Hispanics using the "war names" of Leopoldo and Angelo visited the apartment of Silvia Odio in Dallas, Texas. Leopoldo and Angelo were accompanied by an American whom they introduced as "Leon Oswald." Silvia's sister Annie was in the apartment at the time and witnessed the meeting. "Leon" the American said virtually nothing. Leopoldo did most of the talking. He wanted Silvia, whose father had been deeply involved in anti-Castro efforts, to help in the anti-Castro cause. Silvia declined because she did not want to be involved with a group that would commit violence. The three men sat a few feet from Silvia, so she got an up-close prolonged look at them.
Within 48 hours after the visit, Leopoldo phoned Silvia and told her that the American, "Leon Oswald," was an expert marksman and a former Marine. He said Oswald believed the Cubans should have shot JFK after the Bay of Pigs:
"He said that the Cubans, we did not have any guts because we should have assassinated Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs." (10 HSCA 27)
Disturbed by such talk, Silvia told Annie about the troubling phone call.
Silvia Odio wrote to her father about the encounter and also told several of her friends about it.
Soon after the assassination, Silvia and Annie independently recognized Oswald on TV as the "Leon Oswald" who had visited Silvia's apartment two months earlier. They were both very frightened and worried about their safety. They feared that the two anti-Castro Cubans and the American had been involved in JFK's death.
David Slawson, the WC attorney who interviewed Silvia Odio, said Silvia was "checked out thoroughly” and that “the evidence is unanimously favorable, both as to her character and reliability, and as to her intelligence." WC attorney William Coleman agreed with Slawson about Silvia Odio. Both Slawson and Coleman went so far as to suggest in an internal memo, based on the evidence they had uncovered, that Oswald, despite his public posture as a Castro sympathizer, was actually an agent of anti-Castro exiles. We now know that WC chief counsel J. Lee Rankin and WC attorney Wesley Liebeler also believed Silvia Odio was credible.
Silvia Odio and her story posed a serious problem for the WC, since her sister Annie was in the room when Leopoldo introduced the American as "Leon Oswald." The WC asked the FBI to check into the matter. The FBI provided a fraudulent explanation for the Odio incident. The FBI explanation was based on a fabricated story told by Loran Hall, who said that he and two associates were the ones who visited the Odios, and that one of his associates looked a lot like Oswald. This gave the WC an excuse to conclude that the Odio incident was a case of mistaken identity.
Forced into a corner by the force and character of Odio's account, WC apologists have resorted to the lame claim that she was prone to hyper hysteria and panic attacks to the point of being mentally ill, even though she was educated and earned a good income, even though her sister Annie backed up every essential part of her account, and even though the WC attorneys who investigated the matter believed she was credible.
-- If JFK's coat and shirt did not significantly bunch, and bunch in nearly perfect correspondence with each other, just before the back-wound bullet struck, the lone-gunman theory collapses.
WC defenders have floated the zany and demonstrably false bunched-clothing theory because the holes in the back of JFK's coat and shirt are over 5 inches below the collar and place the back wound far too low for the single-bullet theory to be even theoretically possible.
Photographic evidence proves that JFK's coat was not markedly bunched, and was barely bunched at all, just before the bullet struck. I discuss this issue at some length in my online article "JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible," https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view.
-- If the Dallas law enforcement officers who reported encountering phony Secret Service agents in Dealey Plaza soon after the assassination were not mistaken, the lone-gunman theory collapses.
Dallas police officer Joe Smith and Dallas police sergeant D. V. Harkness both reported encountering men who identified themselves as Secret Service agents, but we know that no Secret Service agents were in Dealey Plaza after the shooting.
Naturally, lone-gunman theorists reject these accounts. They offer weak, unconvincing explanations for these officers' straightforward accounts. I discuss this issue in detail in my online article "The Man Who Wasn’t There: Were There Phony Secret Service Agents in Dealey Plaza?," https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xIXl_HXM5_y_L5sLRGv1XO_vLUc8sHdC/view.
-
Michael continues to demonstrate that he is not the sharpest tool in the epistemological shed.
Let’s take a silly example:
“If Fred’s claim that he fell off the edge of the earth last Tuesday and had to hang on by his fingernails until rescued by his wife is true … the spherical earth theory collapses.”
See the problem?
The spherical earth theory is established to a level of scientific certainty by a vast body of evidence. No rational person is going to give credit to Fred’s claim, or the claims of 100 like him. Even if Fred and Mrs. Fred are entirely sincere, every rational person is going to conclude they are mistaken and is going to favor an alternative explanation that is consistent with a spherical earth.
The LN narrative is supported by a very large body of evidence, analysis and logic. It is not established to a level of scientific certainty, but it is well-established and has survived as the verdict of history. (Even the LN narrative has a fair amount of wiggle room. For example, some of us lean toward Oswald having fired only two shots or the SBT not necessarily accounting for Connally’s wrist wound. There could be quite a number of fairly significant variations in the LN narrative without the narrative as a whole “collapsing.”)
All of Michael’s “smoking guns” have been considered by the WC and HSCA and God knows how many serious researchers. The LN narrative has survived because (1) it is supported by a very large body of evidence and makes by far the most real-world, Occam’s Razor sense, and (2) of the various problem areas (Michael’s smoking guns), not one of them has no explanation that cannot be fitted within the LN narrative.
To “collapse” the LN narrative, you would need something that was genuinely material to the narrative, was established to a level of certainty, with no need for assumptions or speculation, and was flatly IMPOSSIBLE to fit within the LN narrative.
Cliff Varnell at the Ed Forum, to his credit, recognizes this. He insists that the alignment of the holes in JFK’s clothing, the back wound and the throat wound is IMPOSSIBLE to square with the SBT and thus the LN narrative collapses. Cliff does not want to talk about anything else. He has chided Michael for Michael’s efforts to explain away the SBT because (Cliff says) his “alignment” argument SETTLES THE CASE FOR CONSPIRACY, PERIOD.
Ironically, Michael cites the “alignment” argument in his latest post.
But then you look at what Cliff does for an explanation. Everything does line up “rather closely” for there to have been two separate shots, one from the front and one from the back – a remarkable coincidence, yes? We also have the problem of where the bullets went – yes? Cliff hypothesizes CIA-issued ice bullets that melted before exiting the body. Well …
For the “alignment” to be truly IMPOSSIBLE, we would have to know PRECISELY the angle at which the bullet hit the clothing, how the clothing was arranged at that nanosecond (taking into account JFK’s back brace and the bunching of the coat and shirt that is apparent in several photos), how JFK’s body was oriented at that nanosecond, and what the bullet did as it traveled through his body. We don’t know those things with the requisite level of precision to declare the alignment IMPOSSIBLE.
Hence, given the strength of the LN narrative as a whole, most rational people are going to conclude that, yes, the alignment is a bit of a mystery but that the most plausible explanation is one consistent with the LN narrative (typically, bunching).
According to Michael, the LN narrative “COLLAPSES!” if any one of about 100 conspiracy nuggets is true. Yet all of those nuggets have been known for decades and the LN narrative remains intact. The rational majority has concluded for each nugget that there is either an explanation that is consistent with the LN narrative or that there is some flaw in the claim on which the nugget is based.
Hence, Michael’s nuggets, individually and collectively, go nowhere. He’s really just listing 100 “Fred says he fell off the edge” claims. What remains the Holy Grail for CTers is something that is genuinely material to the LN narrative, is established to a level of certainty, with no need for assumptions or speculation, and is flatly IMPOSSIBLE to fit within the LN narrative. As history has shown, the LN narrative is not fragile at all.
-
Still more examples:
-- If Silvia and Annie Odio were not mistaken, the lone-gunman theory collapses.
In September 1963, two Hispanics using the "war names" of Leopoldo and Angelo visited the apartment of Silvia Odio in Dallas, Texas. Leopoldo and Angelo were accompanied by an American whom they introduced as "Leon Oswald." Silvia's sister Annie was in the apartment at the time and witnessed the meeting. "Leon" the American said virtually nothing. Leopoldo did most of the talking. He wanted Silvia, whose father had been deeply involved in anti-Castro efforts, to help in the anti-Castro cause. Silvia declined because she did not want to be involved with a group that would commit violence. The three men sat a few feet from Silvia, so she got an up-close prolonged look at them.
Within 48 hours after the visit, Leopoldo phoned Silvia and told her that the American, "Leon Oswald," was an expert marksman and a former Marine. He said Oswald believed the Cubans should have shot JFK after the Bay of Pigs:
"He said that the Cubans, we did not have any guts because we should have assassinated Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs." (10 HSCA 27)
Disturbed by such talk, Silvia told Annie about the troubling phone call.
Silvia Odio wrote to her father about the encounter and also told several of her friends about it.
Soon after the assassination, Silvia and Annie independently recognized Oswald on TV as the "Leon Oswald" who had visited Silvia's apartment two months earlier. They were both very frightened and worried about their safety. They feared that the two anti-Castro Cubans and the American had been involved in JFK's death.
David Slawson, the WC attorney who interviewed Silvia Odio, said Silvia was "checked out thoroughly” and that “the evidence is unanimously favorable, both as to her character and reliability, and as to her intelligence." WC attorney William Coleman agreed with Slawson about Silvia Odio. Both Slawson and Coleman went so far as to suggest in an internal memo, based on the evidence they had uncovered, that Oswald, despite his public posture as a Castro sympathizer, was actually an agent of anti-Castro exiles. We now know that WC chief counsel J. Lee Rankin and WC attorney Wesley Liebeler also believed Silvia Odio was credible.
Silvia Odio and her story posed a serious problem for the WC, since her sister Annie was in the room when Leopoldo introduced the American as "Leon Oswald." The WC asked the FBI to check into the matter. The FBI provided a fraudulent explanation for the Odio incident. The FBI explanation was based on a fabricated story told by Loran Hall, who said that he and two associates were the ones who visited the Odios, and that one of his associates looked a lot like Oswald. This gave the WC an excuse to conclude that the Odio incident was a case of mistaken identity.
Forced into a corner by the force and character of Odio's account, WC apologists have resorted to the lame claim that she was prone to hyper hysteria and panic attacks to the point of being mentally ill, even though she was educated and earned a good income, even though her sister Annie backed up every essential part of her account, and even though the WC attorneys who investigated the matter believed she was credible.
What makes Odio's account so deadly to the lone-gunman theory is the phone call she received from Leopoldo soon after the visit, when Leopoldo told her that "Leon Oswald" was a crazy sharpshooter who thought anti-Castro Cubans should have killed JFK after the Bay of Pigs. The phone call was the main reason she and her sister were so disturbed when they saw Oswald on TV after he was arrested.
The phone call was clearly an attempt to frame Oswald for the assassination weeks before it occurred. This is why lone-gunman theorists have to find any excuse, no matter lame, to reject Silvia Odio's account.
Even if one wants to swallow the WC's spurious claim that the three men who visited the Odio sisters were Loran Hall, William Seymour, and Lawrence Howard, this does not explain the phone call. It is pretty hard to argue that Silvia "misunderstood" what the caller said, much less that she just made up the account of the call.
BTW, when the FBI showed Silvia photos of Hall, Seymour, and Howard, she said none of them looked like the three men who came to her apartment.