JFK Assassination Forum
The JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Lance Payette on June 04, 2026, 05:52:49 PM
-
Ben Cole and I have articulated two tight, minimalist conspiracy theories – G2 (Cuba) and the Mafia respectively. I think we’re both talking about no more than five participants from conception through execution.
I know it’s fun to hypothesize elaborate conspiracies involving everyone but the kitchen sink, but this is just flat-out silly. Give it up, unless you acknowledge you’re just having fun and not trying to articulate a plausible theory.
This was a Presidential assassination. Anyone whose fingerprints were on it in any way was going to be executed. Every real-world conspiracy of any significance involves the minimal number of participants – and this would be true in spades of a Presidential assassination. And it sure as hell wouldn’t have involved an elaborate cover-up extending to Bethesda and beyond. This is just flat-out silly. Weird and fun, but flat-out silly.
Larry Hancock says Someone Would Have Talked – and he thinks someone did. That’s the problem with any conspiracy that isn’t the absolute minimalist scenario. Some of the people Larry thinks talked would not have been allowed anywhere near a Presidential assassination conspiracy unless the planners were Curly, Larry and Moe.
Forget all the “ideologically-oriented” conspiracies. Allen Dulles? Come on, this is science-fiction. Only the following had a real-honest-God motive for whacking JFK:
1. LBJ: perfect
2. The Mafia: perfect
3. Right-wing Texas oilmen: perfect
4. Those with an anti-Castro motive (which overlaps with 1-3 above): good, but somewhat more “ideological” than 1-3 above
5. Castro and/or his supporters: not nearly as strong, but plausible
There are only two plausible roles for Oswald:
1. Knows he’s a gunman in a pro-Castro conspiracy
2. Thinks he’s a gunman in an pro-Castro conspiracy
The key to the plausibility of any conspiracy theory is the implausibility of the SBT. The SBT is possible, but it is implausible for multiple reasons. If Oswald fired only two shots, it is entirely plausible that the rapid bang-bang heard by several witnesses was Oswald’s second shot and another from someplace like the Dal-Tex building or County Records building (as I believe) or the Grassy Knoll (as Ben suggests). I believe my two buildings are simply more plausible.
This is what I think we realistically have to work with. It is possible to construct a tight, highly compartmentalized, realistic conspiracy with any of the five candidates suggested above. Dan O’Meara suggested one with just LBJ, Byrd (who owned the TSBD building), Cason (president of the TSBD business), Bill Shelley, and a hitman other than Oswald; I thought it fell apart inside the TSBD, but it’s in the ballpark of what I’m talking about.
As Dan’s did, a tight, minimalist conspiracy could involve combinations of 1-4 above, but you’d have to make the connections in a tight, minimalist, plausible way.
Even with a tight, minimalist conspiracy, the trick is always to bring Oswald into it in a plausible way. LBJ and Oswald, the Mafia and Oswald, right-wing Texas oilmen and Oswald? Those are challenges. Pro-Castroites or anti-Castroites? Much easier. Of course, LBJ, the Mafia or Texas oilmen could have brought Oswald in via a contact in the pro- or anti-Castro community, but then we have to make a plausible connection between them and this middleman.
Anyway, if I were retained to construct a plausible conspiracy to sell to a jury or the court of public opinion, I believe I would have to work within these realistic parameters. The fact that even very prominent voices in the CT community can’t see that what they are peddling is science fiction is very puzzling. The fact that they pointedly ignore the far more realistic scenarios is not only puzzling but somewhat suspicious. The conspiracy-prone mindset does gravitate toward dark intrigue and unnecessary complexity, so this may be a large part of the explanation.
-
Mafia very small operation. You have Oswald, someone on the knoll pretending to be with SS flashing credentials, and Ruby.
In 2009, a secret FBI informant exploded a verbal bombshell: Carlos Marcello once told him during a prison yard conversation, “I had the little bastard (JFK) killed. He was a thorn in my shoe.”
Jack Van Laningham—a former cellmate of the Mafia don—disclosed Marcello’s confession in a TV interview on the Discovery Channel’s “Did the Mob Kill JFK?” Van Laningham subsequently passed a polygraph test.
He said Marcello explained that Oswald had visited him in New Orleans and that “he was my man. He did what the hell I told him to do.”
As for Jack Ruby, Marcello told his cellmate that Dallas strip club owner was under his thumb, deeply in debt, and owed the Mob boss “big.” So Marcello, according to Van Laningham, ordered Ruby to pay off the debt by rubbing out Oswald.
Van Laningham, who was at the Texarkana Federal Prison for bank robbery, ratted out Marcello for the FBI in a deal that sprung him from prison early. Thomas Kimmel, the FBI agent who supervised the informant, says he has no reason to disbelieve Van Laningham’s story.
https://crimemagazine.com/carlos-marcello-and-assassination-president-kennedy
-
Ben Cole and I have articulated two tight, minimalist conspiracy theories – G2 (Cuba) and the Mafia respectively. I think we’re both talking about no more than five participants from conception through execution.
I know it’s fun to hypothesize elaborate conspiracies involving everyone but the kitchen sink, but this is just flat-out silly. Give it up, unless you acknowledge you’re just having fun and not trying to articulate a plausible theory.
This was a Presidential assassination. Anyone whose fingerprints were on it in any way was going to be executed. Every real-world conspiracy of any significance involves the minimal number of participants – and this would be true in spades of a Presidential assassination. And it sure as hell wouldn’t have involved an elaborate cover-up extending to Bethesda and beyond. This is just flat-out silly. Weird and fun, but flat-out silly.
Larry Hancock says Someone Would Have Talked – and he thinks someone did. That’s the problem with any conspiracy that isn’t the absolute minimalist scenario. Some of the people Larry thinks talked would not have been allowed anywhere near a Presidential assassination conspiracy unless the planners were Curly, Larry and Moe.
Forget all the “ideologically-oriented” conspiracies. Allen Dulles? Come on, this is science-fiction. Only the following had a real-honest-God motive for whacking JFK:
1. LBJ: perfect
2. The Mafia: perfect
3. Right-wing Texas oilmen: perfect
4. Those with an anti-Castro motive (which overlaps with 1-3 above): good, but somewhat more “ideological” than 1-3 above
5. Castro and/or his supporters: not nearly as strong, but plausible
There are only two plausible roles for Oswald:
1. Knows he’s a gunman in a pro-Castro conspiracy
2. Thinks he’s a gunman in an pro-Castro conspiracy
The key to the plausibility of any conspiracy theory is the implausibility of the SBT. The SBT is possible, but it is implausible for multiple reasons. If Oswald fired only two shots, it is entirely plausible that the rapid bang-bang heard by several witnesses was Oswald’s second shot and another from someplace like the Dal-Tex building or County Records building (as I believe) or the Grassy Knoll (as Ben suggests). I believe my two buildings are simply more plausible.
This is what I think we realistically have to work with. It is possible to construct a tight, highly compartmentalized, realistic conspiracy with any of the five candidates suggested above. Dan O’Meara suggested one with just LBJ, Byrd (who owned the TSBD building), Cason (president of the TSBD business), Bill Shelley, and a hitman other than Oswald; I thought it fell apart inside the TSBD, but it’s in the ballpark of what I’m talking about.
As Dan’s did, a tight, minimalist conspiracy could involve combinations of 1-4 above, but you’d have to make the connections in a tight, minimalist, plausible way.
Even with a tight, minimalist conspiracy, the trick is always to bring Oswald into it in a plausible way. LBJ and Oswald, the Mafia and Oswald, right-wing Texas oilmen and Oswald? Those are challenges. Pro-Castroites or anti-Castroites? Much easier. Of course, LBJ, the Mafia or Texas oilmen could have brought Oswald in via a contact in the pro- or anti-Castro community, but then we have to make a plausible connection between them and this middleman.
Anyway, if I were retained to construct a plausible conspiracy to sell to a jury or the court of public opinion, I believe I would have to work within these realistic parameters. The fact that even very prominent voices in the CT community can’t see that what they are peddling is science fiction is very puzzling. The fact that they pointedly ignore the far more realistic scenarios is not only puzzling but somewhat suspicious. The conspiracy-prone mindset does gravitate toward dark intrigue and unnecessary complexity, so this may be a large part of the explanation.
Several observations:
1. Nobody was going to be executed. Not even Oswald. He would have been found guilty and sentenced to death but he couldn't have extended the appeals process until SCOTUS vacated the death penalty in 1972.
2. Oswald didn't need anybody to carry out the assassination. It only required one man with reasonable proficiency with a rifle.
3. Any conspiracy theory, large or small, requires connecting the conspirators to the gunman, who was Oswald.
4. There is nothing implausible about the SBT. The geometry works perfectly. A shot fired from the sniper's nest through JFK's throat couldn't have missed JBC. He was perfectly aligned to receive that bullet.
5. Conway Twitty had hit record that would apply to all conspiracy theories. It's Only Make Believe. There is no evidence Oswald was acting on behalf of anybody but himself.
-
Mafia very small operation. You have Oswald, someone on the knoll pretending to be with SS flashing credentials, and Ruby.
In 2009, a secret FBI informant exploded a verbal bombshell: Carlos Marcello once told him during a prison yard conversation, “I had the little bastard (JFK) killed. He was a thorn in my shoe.”
Jack Van Laningham—a former cellmate of the Mafia don—disclosed Marcello’s confession in a TV interview on the Discovery Channel’s “Did the Mob Kill JFK?” Van Laningham subsequently passed a polygraph test.
He said Marcello explained that Oswald had visited him in New Orleans and that “he was my man. He did what the hell I told him to do.”
As for Jack Ruby, Marcello told his cellmate that Dallas strip club owner was under his thumb, deeply in debt, and owed the Mob boss “big.” So Marcello, according to Van Laningham, ordered Ruby to pay off the debt by rubbing out Oswald.
Van Laningham, who was at the Texarkana Federal Prison for bank robbery, ratted out Marcello for the FBI in a deal that sprung him from prison early. Thomas Kimmel, the FBI agent who supervised the informant, says he has no reason to disbelieve Van Laningham’s story.
https://crimemagazine.com/carlos-marcello-and-assassination-president-kennedy
Insofar as I know, the supposed tapes of Van Laningham’s supposed conversations with Marcello are still sealed. Larry Schnapf at the Ed Forum said in 2022 he was working to get them unsealed, but I don’t know the status. The only FBI documents I have seen refer only to Marcello saying “Yeah, I had the SOB killed” in a conversation outside in the prison yard. Marcello later denied saying this (surprise, surprise) and the FBI had doubts about his mental capacity.
Once we get past the bare confession, Van Laningham’s tale sounds suspiciously like all too many JFKA tall tales – as though he knew just enough to weave one. Both Oswald and Ruby had close relationships with Marcello? Really?
If Oswald was in Marcello’s pocket, why is there zero evidence of this in his life? If I was in a Mob boss’s pocket, I would not expect to continue to live in utter poverty and ratty apartments and to float from one grungy minimum-wage job to the next. This is the problem with all theories that have Oswald as a CIA operative or Mafia guy or whatever – there is zero evidence that he had any hidden income or benefactor.
Why would Marcello trust Ruby to whack Oswald? That would make Ruby as dangerous to the plot as Oswald. If I had to trust either Ruby or Oswald not to talk, I’d trust Oswald.
This sounds like James Files all over again. I can believe Marcello was a prime mover behind the JFKA. I can believe he might have blabbed that he had the SOB killed. I cannot believe that he had the relationships with Oswald and Ruby that Van Laningham claims. It just makes no sense.
If we favor a particular conspiracy theory – here, the Mafia – I think we have to be very careful to keep our wits and not become credulous believers of everything that supports that theory. I understand, it's almost irresistable not to make the Mafia-Ruby connection, but it just makes no sense.
-
Several observations:
You continue to live in your own little LN Bubble that is as impermeable as any Conspiracy Bubble.
1. Nobody was going to be executed. Not even Oswald. He would have been found guilty and sentenced to death but he couldn't have extended the appeals process until SCOTUS vacated the death penalty in 1972.
Mr. Pretend Lawyer strikes again. In 1963, any participant in the JFKA - up to and including LBJ - would have faced a certain sentence of execution. You optimistically assume none of these would have been carried out by 1972. In 1963, the average time between sentencing and execution was far less than eight years - some sources say two. Apart from all this, my point was that anyone planning a Presidential assassination in 1963 would have known "We're all looking at execution if this goes south."
2. Oswald didn't need anybody to carry out the assassination. It only required one man with reasonable proficiency with a rifle.
But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about plausible conspiracy theories. For that matter, there are plausible conspiracies that can accommodate pretty much everything the LN narrative posits.
3. Any conspiracy theory, large or small, requires connecting the conspirators to the gunman, who was Oswald.
OK, and so? One of my stated parameters is that the only two plausible conspiratorial roles for Oswald were as a knowing gunman in a pro-Castro conspiracy or as a patsy gunman in what he thought was a pro-Castro conspiracy.
4. There is nothing implausible about the SBT. The geometry works perfectly. A shot fired from the sniper's nest through JFK's throat couldn't have missed JBC. He was perfectly aligned to receive that bullet.
The SBT posits a so-called Magic Bullet that emerges nearly pristine even after the damage caused to JBC. The SBT requires JFK's clothes to have been bunched to accommodate the misaligned holes in his clothing and body, and even then it's difficult to make it work. The provenance of the Magic Bullet is uncertain at best, with Landis claiming he found it on the back seat of the limousine. One of the victims, JBC, rejected it. The witnesses such as Baker who described a very quick bang-bang sequence are problematical for the SBT. The SBT may be correct, but it is far from rock-solid.
5. Conway Twitty had hit record that would apply to all conspiracy theories. It's Only Make Believe. There is no evidence Oswald was acting on behalf of anybody but himself.
You once again continue to play the "no evidence" game as though saying this made it true. The supposed confessions by Trafficante and Marcello are evidence for Mafia involvement. They are not evidence that will ever be tested in court, but none of the evidence has ever been tested in court other than in the artificial environment of a mock trial. All we can do is attempt to determine how credible any piece of evidence is and how much weight it should receive. This is the the reason I urge CTers to focus on the theories that are actually plausible and the evidence supporting them.
-
You continue to live in your own little LN Bubble that is as impermeable as any Conspiracy Bubble.
That's a good thing. It keeps me from getting silly ideas for which there is no evidence. CTs continue to assume there was a conspiracy despite never providing any evidence of such.
Mr. Pretend Lawyer strikes again. In 1963, any participant in the JFKA - up to and including LBJ - would have faced a certain sentence of execution.
Yes, that is what I said.
You optimistically assume none of these would have been carried out by 1972. In 1963, the average time between sentencing and execution was far less than eight years - some sources say two. Apart from all this, my point was that anyone planning a Presidential assassination in 1963 would have known "We're all looking at execution if this goes south."
Only one man who committed a murder after the JFKA was executed for his crime and that was a man who chose not to appeal his sentence. Everyone else who was on death row extended the appeals process beyond 1967 when there was a de facto moratorium on executions because of cases working their way up to SCOTUS. The only way Oswald would have been executed would have been if he chose not to take advantage of the appeals process and accepted his death sentence.
But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about plausible conspiracy theories.
As far as the JFKA is concerned, "plausible conspiracy theories" is an oxymoron. No one has ever come up with one for which there is any evidence. There are lots of make believe conspiracy theories.
For that matter, there are plausible conspiracies that can accommodate pretty much everything the LN narrative posits.
Maybe you can share one with us. The only one that is even theoretical/y possible is one in which Oswald conspired with maybe one or two individuals for which no evidence was ever found. In that circumstance, the evidence would be exactly what it is, but since there is no evidence of such a small conspiracy and the fact Oswald was a loner his whole life, I see no reason to believe even a small conspiracy existed.
OK, and so? One of my stated parameters is that the only two plausible conspiratorial roles for Oswald were as a knowing gunman in a pro-Castro conspiracy or as a patsy gunman in what he thought was a pro-Castro conspiracy.
Such a conspiracy would out of necessity been put together in just a matter of days because the motorcade route was not made public until the Monday of that week.
The SBT posits a so-called Magic Bullet that emerges nearly pristine even after the damage caused to JBC.
Oh, Christ. Are you still peddling that old wives' tale. The bullet was not nearly pristine. It was flattened at the base indicating it was tumbling when it first struck bone. Full metal jacket bullets are designed not to deform when passing through soft tissue which CE399 did when it went through JFK's torso. Such a bullet tumbles upon exiting which has been shown experimentally. The shape of the entry wound on JBC's back indicates it did not enter nose first. The only way that happens is if the bullet had struck something else first, like JFK's torso.
The SBT requires JFK's clothes to have been bunched to accommodate the misaligned holes in his clothing and body, and even then it's difficult to make it work.
Where the hell are you going with this. Are you saying the bullet that went through his clothing isn't the one that entered his back. That would require a real Magic Bullet.
The provenance of the Magic Bullet is uncertain at best, with Landis claiming he found it on the back seat of the limousine.
Landis claim is quite dubious given that he waited 60 years to tell anybody about it and it would make him look like an idiot because anyone with an ounce of sense would know that was a really important piece of evidence. Even if it is true, it does nothing to invalidate the SBT.
One of the victims, JBC, rejected it.
JBC rejected the SBT because he had been told JFK was hit by the first shot and he knew he had been hit by the second shot. It follows that if JFK was hit by the second shot, which he was, then they were both hit by the same shot.
The witnesses such as Baker who described a very quick bang-bang sequence are problematical for the SBT. The SBT may be correct, but it is far from rock-solid.
Marrion Baker was on Houston St. when the shots were fired. How the hell would he know which shots hit JFK and JBC.
You once again continue to play the "no evidence" game as though saying this made it true.
You could prove me wrong by presenting evidence of your goofy theories but you never do.
The supposed confessions by Trafficante and Marcello are evidence for Mafia involvement.
Supposed? You really are reaching now.
They are not evidence that will ever be tested in court, but none of the evidence has ever been tested in court other than in the artificial environment of a mock trial. All we can do is attempt to determine how credible any piece of evidence is and how much weight it should receive.
That is true but the bad news is you are really bad at weighing evidence as you have just demonstrated. Don't feel too bad. Most CTs have the same problem. Do you ever bother to think these things through before you post them. I feel like I'm back in 1991 debunking the same old nonsense I was dealing with back then.
This is the the reason I urge CTers to focus on the theories that are actually plausible and the evidence supporting them.
It seems to me the first step should be to come up with a plausible conspiracy theory supported by evidence which no one ever has.
-
"What about Larry Hancock and John Newman?" screams the peanut gallery. "They know way more than you, bub."
Well, they know way more about some JFKA-related things, I'm sure. I think Newman and his crowd are driven by motives other than trying to solve the JFKA. There is no way the conspiracy they posit - whatever the hell it is - has any real-world plausibility. It's all dark intrigue and speculation, peppered with names and acronyms and documents until your eyes glaze over (or at least mine do). IMHO, they'll never connect it to Dealey Plaza.
Larry Hancock's work would fit into my category 4 and is certainly more plausible than Newman's. As with Newman, however, you are overwhelmed with names and acronyms and whatnot, and it's all just too elaborate for me to find it believable, nor have I seen anything convincingly tying Oswald into the plot.
I always remind myself and others that Newman is also the author of Quest for the Kingdom: The Secret Teachings of Jesus in the Light of Yogic Mysticism, a weird but undeniably scholarly book that I have never even seen mentioned in my vast Christian-oriented reading. Hancock is the author of Unidentified; The National Security Problem of UFOs, which I likewise have never even seen mentioned in my vast UFO-oriented reading. This is not to minimize their work - I found Newman's book fascinating - but just to emphasize that though they may seem to be "major figures" in the JFKA community they are pretty much fringe figures in other areas into which they have waded.
Just my $0.02 worth and where I would - and do - focus my attention if I were open to JFKA conspiracy theories.
P.S. - I'm not going to try to deal with John C.'s goofy formatting, but there were 46 executions between 1963 and 1967. WHAT THE HELL is the point, other than arguing for the sake of arguing? No one involved in the JFKA was thinking, "Hey, the way the law is trending we may only spend life in prison instead of being executed." What a weirdo.
-
That's a good thing. It keeps me from getting silly ideas for which there is no evidence. CTs continue to assume there was a conspiracy despite never providing any evidence of such.
Yes, that is what I said.
Only one man who committed a murder after the JFKA was executed for his crime and that was a man who chose not to appeal his sentence. Everyone else who was on death row extended the appeals process beyond 1967 when there was a de facto moratorium on executions because of cases working their way up to SCOTUS. The only way Oswald would have been executed would have been if he chose not to take advantage of the appeals process and accepted his death sentence.
As far as the JFKA is concerned, "plausible conspiracy theories" is an oxymoron. No one has ever come up with one for which there is any evidence. There are lots of make believe conspiracy theories.
Maybe you can share one with us. The only one that is even theoretical/y possible is one in which Oswald conspired with maybe one or two individuals for which no evidence was ever found. In that circumstance, the evidence would be exactly what it is, but since there is no evidence of such a small conspiracy and the fact Oswald was a loner his whole life, I see no reason to believe even a small conspiracy existed.
Oh, Christ. Are you still peddling that old wives' tale. The bullet was not nearly pristine. It was flattened at the base indicating it was tumbling when it first struck bone. Full metal jacket bullets are designed not to deform when passing through soft tissue which CE399 did when it went through JFK's torso. Such a bullet tumbles upon exiting which has been shown experimentally. The shape of the entry wound on JBC's back indicates it did not enter nose first. The only way that happens is if the bullet had struck something else first, like JFK's torso.
Where the hell are you going with this. Are you saying the bullet that went through his clothing isn't the one that entered his back. That would require a real Magic Bullet.
Landis claim is quite dubious given that he waited 60 years to tell anybody about it and it would make him look like an idiot because anyone with an ounce of sense would know that was a really important piece of evidence. Even if it is true, it does nothing to invalidate the SBT.
JBC rejected the SBT because he had been told JFK was hit by the first shot and he knew he had been hit by the second shot. It follows that if JFK was hit by the second shot, which he was, then they were both hit by the same shot.
Marrion Baker was on Houston St. when the shots were fired. How the hell would he know which shots hit JFK and JBC.
You could prove me wrong by presenting evidence of your goofy theories but you never do.
Supposed? You really are reaching now.
That is true but the bad news is you are really bad at weighing evidence as you have just demonstrated. Don't feel too bad. Most CTs have the same problem. Do you ever bother to think these things through before you post them. I feel like I'm back in 1991 debunking the same old nonsense I was dealing with back then.
It seems to me the first step should be to come up with a plausible conspiracy theory supported by evidence which no one ever has.
-
"What about Larry Hancock and John Newman?" screams the peanut gallery. "They know way more than you, bub."
Well, they know way more about some JFKA-related things, I'm sure. I think Newman and his crowd are driven by motives other than trying to solve the JFKA. There is no way the conspiracy they posit - whatever the hell it is - has any real-world plausibility. It's all dark intrigue and speculation, peppered with names and acronyms and documents until your eyes glaze over (or at least mine do). IMHO, they'll never connect it to Dealey Plaza.
Larry Hancock's work would fit into my category 4 and is certainly more plausible than Newman's. As with Newman, however, you are overwhelmed with names and acronyms and whatnot, and it's all just too elaborate for me to find it believable, nor have I seen anything convincingly tying Oswald into the plot.
I always remind myself and others that Newman is also the author of Quest for the Kingdom: The Secret Teachings of Jesus in the Light of Yogic Mysticism, a weird but undeniably scholarly book that I have never even seen mentioned in my vast Christian-oriented reading. Hancock is the author of Unidentified; The National Security Problem of UFOs, which I likewise have never even seen mentioned in my vast UFO-oriented reading. This is not to minimize their work - I found Newman's book fascinating - but just to emphasize that though they may seem to be "major figures" in the JFKA community they are pretty much fringe figures in other areas into which they have waded.
Just my $0.02 worth and where I would - and do - focus my attention if I were open to JFKA conspiracy theories.
P.S. - I'm not going to try to deal with John C.'s goofy formatting, but there were 46 executions between 1963 and 1967. WHAT THE HELL is the point, other than arguing for the sake of arguing? No one involved in the JFKA was thinking, "Hey, the way the law is trending we may only spend life in prison instead of being executed." What a weirdo.
Completely irrelevant. All of those executions were for murders committed prior to the JFKA and the condemned had run out their appeals process. Oswald would have had the same multi-layered appeals process available to him as the other murderers. For a comparison, the In Cold Blood murderers Perry Smith and Dick Hickock committed their gruesome murders in November of 1959 and weren't executed until April of 1965. A similar length appeals process for Oswald would have extended to 1969, when there was a moratorium on executions so Oswald would have still been on death row in 1972 when SCOTUS spared the life of all prisoners on death row and commuted their sentences to life in prison. It is extremely unlikely Oswald would have been executed had Jack Ruby not shot him.
-
FYI, there were five executions done in Texas in 1964. All were black men and
two three did not involve murder.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_executed_in_Texas,_1960%E2%80%931964#cite_note-5
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID13537620831/Key4u8ry787bo7o/Screenshot 2026-06-04 194054.jpg)
-
Given that surveys have repeatedly shown that only 1/4 to 1/3 of the Western world believes the lone-gunman theory, you and your fellow WC apologists are the ones who need to focus on plausibility.
I find it so curious that you guys talk like you represent the mainstream, the majority, and that those who posit a conspiracy in the case are a fringe minority, when in fact your view is rejected by 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world, when we now know that even three members of the WC did not buy the Commission's story, and when the last official U.S. Government investigation--the HSCA--concluded that the WC failed to follow up on evidence that indicated conspiracy, that two gunmen were involved, that four shots were fired, that one of the shots came from the grassy knoll, that Silvia Odio's account of an anti-Castro Cuban trying to frame Oswald for the assassination weeks before the event was credible, that Ruby had significant Mafia ties, that Ruby lied about how he entered the police basement to shoot Oswald, that Ruby lied about why he shot Oswald, etc., etc.
-
I really am going on hiatus after this post. I just do not have this sort of time for the JFKA follies, much as I enjoy reading my own thoughts. :D
All I'm doing here is thinking out loud - as one who has organized and presented cases, just thinking how I would assemble a plausible conspiracy scenario. If you live and breathe Harvey and Lee or think MTG is the epitome of rationality - please, go for it.
A plausible conspiracy can be described in which nothing takes place in Dealey Plaza other than what the LN narrative posits. It's hard for me to believe that sophisticated conspirators would entrust the entire operation to Oswald and his $20 M-C, or that the operation would have unfolded as it did, but it's possible.
Regarding the SBT and whatnot: I am certainly not going to enter THAT debate. For starters, I'm not qualified. I'm just thinking out loud - the stuff that has always nagged at me.
It has always seemed to me that the supposed "early shot" and the SBT were and are motivated in part to avoid a conspiracy, as opposed to being entirely evidence-based. I think an excellent case can be and has been made that Oswald fired only two shots. As Jack Nessan has pointed out, the LN narrative can easily accommodate this; there simply was no early shot - the SBT and the head shot were it. But then we have the witnesses who insist there were two shots that were almost simultaneous. Were these two shots the ones that the SBT has merged into one, definitely meaning two gunmen? Were they the head shot and a shot almost simultaneous with it, as I think Josiah Thompson believes - definitely meaning two gunmen? It does seem to me that the SBT has some implausibilities as I've described. I don't know how it all hashes out and don't feel obligated to try. I simply said that I would focus on this rather than other supposed (and more unlikely) "conspiracy" aspects of Dealey Plaza if I were assembling a conspiracy theory.
FWIW, John Orr's Mafia theory posits a shot by Oswald at Z204 that went through JFK's back and neck and exited the car. He posits a second shot by Oswald at Z236 that strikes JBC. He posits the head shot at Z312 by a different gunman, with a fragment causing JBC's wrist wound. He posits a third shot by Oswald at Z326 that strikes the pavement left of the car, but he admits this is tentative. Is this solid reasoning? I don't know. But it is what I'm talking about when I say a "plausible" conspiracy theory. You are free to scream "It's not plausible AT ALL!" Maybe it's not, but it's certainly an example of a tight, minimalist theory that is more plausible and well-thought-out than most of the CT stuff.
https://www.mountainrivercabins.com/JohnOrrReport.pdf
-
LP--
Fair enough, though I think LHO's confederates were either lower-level G-2'ers, likely acting on their own initiative...or
...hanger-on Alpha-66'ers, keeping in mind Alpha-66 had been penetrated by G-2, and there were double agents in Alpha-66. They had a house in Dallas, adding to the mix. There is a lone eyewitness account of LHO at the Alpha 66 house, on Harlandale in Dallas.
In fact, Rolando Cubela, indisputably given a poison pen by the CIA on 11.22.63, with which he was to assassinate Castro, is thought by many to have been a double agent. This is murky stuff.
Such a small, informal, ad hoc JFKA plot, involving three people (including LHO) with no written record, would be hard to detect. And the WC was, in general, prosecuting the LNT-SBT narrative.
Arlen Specter's lawyerly reasoning on the SBT is a work of art. Basically he said, "If we assume one bullet missed the limo, then the SBT is the only remaining explanation." He reasoned from a premise.
The CIA, in general, would be averse to a JFKA investigation, if suspected anti-Castro assets, or double-agents were in the brew.
It appears George Joaniddes wanted to put the kibosh on the HSCA's look-see into MC. Blakey thought so, after the fact.
OTOH, I do not see much of connection between LHO and the Mafia.
But who knows?
Caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.
-
FYI, there were five executions done in Texas in 1964. All were black men and two did not involve murder.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_executed_in_Texas,_1960%E2%80%931964#cite_note-5
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID13537620831/Key4u8ry787bo7o/Screenshot 2026-06-04 194054.jpg)
Your chart doesn't show the date of the crime so it doesn't give us a clue as to the length of the appeals process. I have little doubt Oswald would have been convicted of a double homicide and sentenced to death but I have serious doubt his sentence would have been carried out before SCOTUS vacated all existing death penalty statutes in 1972. There is a real possibility an 86 year old Oswald would still be sneering at us from his jail cell in Texas.
-
This old recreation of the Discovery Channel's "Beyond the Magic Bullet," which ended up with the bullet going Where It's Not Supposed to Go (i.e., JFK's sternum), recently received some discussion at the Ed Forum.
I also noticed that Larry Schnapf, who works closely with John Orr, says Orr's latest work shows the Mafia bullet being fired from the County Records building. You may recall that Orr sponsored the Knott Lab study of the bullet trajectories but then rejected the results (not because they confirmed the SBT, because they didn't).
Mafia! Mafia! Mafia! :D :D :D
-
It is absurd to think any shooting can be perfectly replicated because there are so many variables involved. For starters, you would need to shoot the same two men who were originally shot, have them in precisely the same position they were in at the time the single bullet struck, and have the shot placed precisely where the original shot struck. Good luck with that. Any deviation is going to produce different results. Elements of the SBT can be tested and have been. We know the 6.5mm round fired by Oswald's Carcano is capable of penetrating 3 feet of pine board as demonstrated for the PBS Nova program by the father/son ballistics team of Luke and Michael Haag. The also showed that a Carcano bullet passing through ballistic gel simulating human flesh will predictably tumble upon exit. This explains why the nose of the bullet was not severely damaged because it was the base of the bullet which was flattened.
You aren't focusing on plausibility when you expect a shooting to be perfectly replicated.
-
It is absurd to think any shooting can be perfectly replicated because there are so many variables involved. For starters, you would need to shoot the same two men who were originally shot, have them in precisely the same position they were in at the time the single bullet struck, and have the shot placed precisely where the original shot struck. Good luck with that. Any deviation is going to produce different results. Elements of the SBT can be tested and have been. We know the 6.5mm round fired by Oswald's Carcano is capable of penetrating 3 feet of pine board as demonstrated for the PBS Nova program by the father/son ballistics team of Luke and Michael Haag. The also showed that a Carcano bullet passing through ballistic gel simulating human flesh will predictably tumble upon exit. This explains why the nose of the bullet was not severely damaged because it was the base of the bullet which was flattened.
You aren't focusing on plausibility when you expect a shooting to be perfectly replicated.
Yes, but that is also true with the SBT, as I have pointed out many times even when wearing my full LN regalia. Those who insist on the SBT pretend to a level of certainty that simply isn't possible. I was impressed myself by the pine board, but that really bears no resemblance to bone impact. The alignment of the back wound and throat wound and the holes in the clothing are a puzzle, hence the "bunched clothing" argument. ("They aren't a puzzle - they are IMPOSSIBLE!" shrieks Cliff Varnell.) Anyway, I'll await whatever the latest Orr-sponsored study says.
Below: Full LN regalia. There are several sellers on eBay. No, that's not me, for crying out loud.
(https://preview.redd.it/i-like-these-new-american-military-uniforms-v0-ikuea9i3rkhy.jpg?auto=webp&s=a17d18a3ae397891c2b63f9ef16c34727cb56909)
-
Yes, but that is also true with the SBT, as I have pointed out many times even when wearing my full LN regalia. Those who insist on the SBT pretend to a level of certainty that simply isn't possible. I was impressed myself by the pine board, but that really bears no resemblance to bone impact. The alignment of the back wound and throat wound and the holes in the clothing are a puzzle, hence the "bunched clothing" argument. ("They aren't a puzzle - they are IMPOSSIBLE!" shrieks Cliff Varnell.) Anyway, I'll await whatever the latest Orr-sponsored study says.
Below: Full LN regalia. There are several sellers on eBay. No, that's not me, for crying out loud.
(https://preview.redd.it/i-like-these-new-american-military-uniforms-v0-ikuea9i3rkhy.jpg?auto=webp&s=a17d18a3ae397891c2b63f9ef16c34727cb56909)
You do what CTs have been doing for decades. You claim the SBT is impossible without ever explaining why you think it is impossible.
-
You do what CTs have been doing for decades. You claim the SBT is impossible without ever explaining why you think it is impossible.
Please read just a little more carefully before you fire off your knee-jerk responses. I have never suggested for one nanosecond I thought the SBT was impossible. I believe it is problematical but could certainly be correct. Cliff Varnell always insists the alignment of the wounds and the holes in the clothing is IMPOSSIBLE, CASE CLOSED, NOTHING ELSE TO TALK ABOUT, YOU'RE JUST STUPID IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE!!! My reference to Cliff was an inside joke for those who have followed his longstanding rant. But because you are a fundamentalist quasi-religious LN zealot, you fire off your knee-jerk fundamentalist quasi-religious LN zealot responses without even reading carefully. You are as whacked-out as any CTer I've ever encountered.
-
This old recreation of the Discovery Channel's "Beyond the Magic Bullet," which ended up with the bullet going Where It's Not Supposed to Go (i.e., JFK's sternum), recently received some discussion at the Ed Forum.
I also noticed that Larry Schnapf, who works closely with John Orr, says Orr's latest work shows the Mafia bullet being fired from the County Records building. You may recall that Orr sponsored the Knott Lab study of the bullet trajectories but then rejected the results (not because they confirmed the SBT, because they didn't).
Mafia! Mafia! Mafia! :D :D :D
Lance,
Being a lawyer what is your opinion on how things would have turned out if Oswald lived for trial? Would the SS taking the body illegally from Dallas, The Parkland Doctors description of wounds compared to Bethesda, Gov. Connally's testimony on not being hit by the same bullet, and the chain of evidence have any impact?
-
Please read just a little more carefully before you fire off your knee-jerk responses. I have never suggested for one nanosecond I thought the SBT was impossible. I believe it is problematical but could certainly be correct. Cliff Varnell always insists the alignment of the wounds and the holes in the clothing is IMPOSSIBLE, CASE CLOSED, NOTHING ELSE TO TALK ABOUT, YOU'RE JUST STUPID IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE!!! My reference to Cliff was an inside joke for those who have followed his longstanding rant. But because you are a fundamentalist quasi-religious LN zealot, you fire off your knee-jerk fundamentalist quasi-religious LN zealot responses without even reading carefully. You are as whacked-out as any CTer I've ever encountered.
OK, explain why the SBT is "problematical".
-
This was a Presidential assassination. Anyone whose fingerprints were on it in any way was going to be executed. Every real-world conspiracy of any significance involves the minimal number of participants – and this would be true in spades of a Presidential assassination. And it sure as hell wouldn’t have involved an elaborate cover-up extending to Bethesda and beyond. This is just flat-out silly. Weird and fun, but flat-out silly.
This polemic shows that not only is your knowledge of the JFK case insufficient but that your knowledge of overall assassination history is lacking as well.
-- The conspiracy that killed Julius Caesar involved dozens of prominent people, including a number of members of the Roman senate. You can find the extensive nature of the plot that killed Caesar discussed in countless scholarly books.
-- The conspiracy that killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, which sparked World War I, was orchestrated by a network of South Slav nationalists and was directly facilitated by rogue elements within the Serbian military intelligence establishment.
The assassination team was helped by the Black Hand, a Serbian nationalist group, by the chief of the military intelligence section of the Serbian general staff, and by numerous officers in Serbian intelligence. Serbian intelligence officers gave the assassins access to the same clandestine network of safe houses and agents that they used to smuggle weapons and operatives into Austria-Hungary.
The assassins and key members of the clandestine network were prosecuted, and over a dozen other people were indicted for their roles in the plot. In total, 25 people were indicted, and scholars agree that many others took part in the plot but were not prosecuted because they could not be identified with enough certainty to warrant formal charges.
-- Although it did involve an assassination, the Iran-Contra conspiracy was a White House-level plot that involved hundreds of low-level operatives who knew little or nothing about the overall plot and involved at least one dozen high-level officials who were the prime conspirators.
-- The Business Plot to depose FDR in 1933 involved numerous Wall Street high rollers who approached a retired Marine Corps general about replacing FDR as president. Luckily for FDR, that general, Smedley Butler, blew the whistle on the plot. The McCormack–Dickstein Committee investigated the matter and concluded "there is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient."
Butler revealed to the McCormack–Dickstein Committee that that Wall Street broker Gerald C. MacGuire attempted to recruit him to lead a coup, promising him an army of 500,000 men for a march on D.C., and financial backing. Butler said the pretext for the coup would be that FDR's health was failing.
-- The assassination of high-level Chilean government official Orlando Letelier, ordered by Chile's dictator Augusto Pinochet, involved numerous people, including agents of the Chilean secret police. The conspirators assassinated Letelier while he was living in the U.S. because he was an outspoken critic of the Pinochet regime. Letelier had previously served as Minister of Foreign Affairs, Interior Minister, Defense Minister, and as Chile's ambassador to the United States.
The Pinochet regime undertook an extensive cover-up operation to hide its role in Letelier's death. The U.S. DOJ documented the Pinochet regime's extensive cover-up efforts. The cover-up operation was even given a formal name: "Operación Mascarada."
-
-- The Business Plot to depose FDR in 1933 involved numerous Wall Street high rollers who approached a retired Marine Corps general about replacing FDR as president. Luckily for FDR, that general, Smedley Butler, blew the whistle on the plot. The McCormack–Dickstein Committee investigated the matter and concluded "there is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient."
This is exactly what would have happened if anyone inside the government had tried to put together a conspiracy to kill JFK.
-
Not a fallacious appeal to authority because I know absolutely nothing about him, but Kevin Balch at the Ed Forum, who has always seemed very knowledgeable and reasonable to me, posted the following on an active thread about "Lone Nut Proponents' Failure to Deal with the Alvarez Fraud":
By the way, I’m not a Lone Nutter. I just think the shots all came from behind, probably from only two positions (TSBD and Dal-Tex). This is a much simpler operation requiring significantly fewer people, better probabilities for escape of the assassins and little chance of leaving evidence that would contradict blaming a lone nut (if that was the intent). I’m sure the planners never even dreamed all the imaginative interpretations that have been made.
To have planned something as conceived by many of the conspiracy theorists would easily require dozens, all tightly coordinated. And that does not include the off-Broadway production put forward for 10th and Patton.
And remember also that this would have been duplicated for Chicago, Tampa and Miami.
So while I cannot appeal to Mr. Balch as an authority, I can say "Great minds think alike." :D
-
Anyway, if I were retained to construct a plausible conspiracy to sell to a jury or the court of public opinion, I believe I would have to work within these realistic parameters.
Humm, well, since 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world finds your theory of the JFK assassination to be implausible, perhaps you should focus on coming up with a plausible lone-gunman theory. Here are just a few of the markedly implausible aspects of the lone-gunman story:
-- Your supposed lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, who was at best a mediocre shot when using a semi-automatic rifle against stationary targets at Marine rifle ranges, allegedly used a bolt-action rifle to perform a shooting feat that has never been duplicated, not even by Master-rated riflemen who used the alleged murder weapon and who fired under easier conditions than those Oswald would have faced.
Not one of the rifle tests that have been done to date have duplicated all of the conditions under which the supposed lone-gunman would have had to fire. In the one rifle test that duplicated most of those conditions, the 1967 CBS rifle test, only one of the 12 riflemen scored two hits in the required timeframe on the first attempt, and that was only because the test counted shots as "hits" even if they landed far down on the back or far out on the shoulder of the target silhouette, at least tripling the size of the target compared to Oswald's alleged shooting feat.
-- You can't even identify when Oswald could have zeroed the alleged murder weapon. Some of you have even floated the absurd argument that the rifle would not have needed to be zeroed, a spurious notion that even WC staffer Wesley Liebeler scorned in an internal WC memo.
-- You have your supposed lone gunman shooting from the sixth-floor window when multiple eyewitness accounts (1) independently put him on the first and second floors of the building during the shooting, and (2) rule out the claim that he dashed down the stairway in time to be seen by Officer Baker beyond the second-floor landing's door to the lunchroom.
-- Your alleged lone gunman went to the trouble of carefully hiding his rifle but left his paper "gun case" and his three spent shells in plain view near the sixth-floor window.
-- Your supposed single assassin allegedly ordered his rifle by mail, idiotically and needlessly creating a paper trail that led straight back to him, when he could have easily bought a better rifle at a local gun store that would have been untraceable (there was no gun registration in Texas in 1963). Not only this, but he mail-ordered the rifle using name Hidell (although no Hidell was listed as authorized to get mail from his post office box), and then, incredibly, carried a fake Hidell ID card on him on the day of the shooting!
Oswald was no fool and was not ignorant. He was highly intelligent. He spoke fluent Russian. He was a voracious reader. Oswald’s tested IQ scores generally ranged from 103 in the fourth grade to 118-119 on subsequent tests. His 118-119 scores put him in the above-average category. Historical and psychiatric evaluations consistently classified his overall intelligence as above average. Says British scholar Anthony Summers,
. . . evidence suggests Oswald was far from stupid. School records show that in several subjects he was three years ahead of his class, and his intelligence was noted by his officers in the Marine Corps. (Not in Your Lifetime: The Defining Book on the JFK Assassination, p. 77).
-- You have your supposed lone gunman using the wrong kind of ammo to have caused the bullet fragmentation seen on the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. This isn't even a close call. No FMJ bullet would have exploded into dozens of tiny fragments and several sizable fragments, in addition to depositing a large fragment, two small fragments, and several tiny fragments 1 cm below its alleged entry point. Such behavior for FMJ bullets is unknown in forensic science. Revealingly, the HSCA's medical panel declined to cite a single case where an FMJ bullet had behaved in this manner, even though they knew this was an issue.
Again, these are just a few of the implausible claims of the lone-gunman theory.
-
Humm, well, since 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world finds your theory of the JFK assassination to be implausible, perhaps you should focus on coming up with a plausible lone-gunman theory. Here are just a few of the markedly implausible aspects of the lone-gunman story:
-- Your supposed lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, who was at best a mediocre shot when using a semi-automatic rifle against stationary targets at Marine rifle ranges, allegedly used a bolt-action rifle to perform a shooting feat that has never been duplicated, not even by Master-rated riflemen who used the alleged murder weapon and who fired under easier conditions than those Oswald would have faced.
Oswald was more than capable of making the shots that killed JFK. His longest shot was only 88 yards, less than half the distance he had to qualify at in the USMC. [quite]
Not one of the rifle tests that have been done to date have duplicated all of the conditions under which the supposed lone-gunman would have had to fire. In the one rifle test that duplicated most of those conditions, the 1967 CBS rifle test, only one of the 12 riflemen scored two hits in the required timeframe on the first attempt, and that was only because the test counted shots as "hits" even if they landed far down on the back or far out on the shoulder of the target silhouette, at least tripling the size of the target compared to Oswald's alleged shooting feat.[/quote]
This one has been a favorite red herring argument of the CTs for years. No shooting in the history of firearms has ever been duplicated because every shooting has its own set of variables that cannot be duplicated. There is nothing about Oswald's shooting of JFK with his Carcano rifle that was beyond his capabilities.
-- You can't even identify when Oswald could have zeroed the alleged murder weapon. Some of you have even floated the absurd argument that the rifle would not have needed to be zeroed, a spurious notion that even WC staffer Wesley Liebeler scorned in an internal WC memo.
Tell us why it is necessary to prove when Oswald zeroed his rifle. Is that a legal requirement to prove somebody committed a homicide with a firearm?
-- You have your supposed lone gunman shooting from the sixth-floor window when multiple eyewitness accounts (1) independently put him on the first and second floors of the building during the shooting, and (2) rule out the claim that he dashed down the stairway in time to be seen by Officer Baker beyond the second-floor landing's door to the lunchroom.
Now you are just making things up. Nobody put Oswald at another location in the TSBD DURING the shooting. Your lie refutes itself. How could Oswald be on the first AND second floors during the shooting. It's amazing somebody who has been at this as long as you have could come up with a claim so wacky.
-- Your alleged lone gunman went to the trouble of carefully hiding his rifle but left his paper "gun case" and his three spent shells in plain view near the sixth-floor window.
So?
-- Your supposed single assassin allegedly ordered his rifle by mail, idiotically and needlessly creating a paper trail that led straight back to him, when he could have easily bought a better rifle at a local gun store that would have been untraceable (there was no gun registration in Texas in 1963). Not only this, but he mail-ordered the rifle using name Hidell (although no Hidell was listed as authorized to get mail from his post office box), and then, incredibly, carried a fake Hidell ID card on him on the day of the shooting!
Oswald didn't buy the rifle for the purpose of killing JFK because he couldn't have possibly known 8 months prior to the act, he would be handed an opportunity to do that. A firearm is only traceable if the authorities have the weapon in their possession. When Oswald took the shot at Walker, he was able to leave the scene with his weapon. He didn't have that option when he killed JFK. Leaving the building with the rifle was not an option. Imagine if Oswald was holding the rifle when Baker confronted him. The encounter would have ended very differently and possibly badly for Baker since Oswald would have still had a live round in the chamber. Oswald could have bought better rifle but it would have cost him more money.
Oswald was no fool and was not ignorant. He was highly intelligent. He spoke fluent Russian. He was a voracious reader. Oswald’s tested IQ scores generally ranged from 103 in the fourth grade to 118-119 on subsequent tests. His 118-119 scores put him in the above-average category. Historical and psychiatric evaluations consistently classified his overall intelligence as above average. Says British scholar Anthony Summers,
. . . evidence suggests Oswald was far from stupid. School records show that in several subjects he was three years ahead of his class, and his intelligence was noted by his officers in the Marine Corps. (Not in Your Lifetime: The Defining Book on the JFK Assassination, p. 77).
So what's your point. Nobody has said Oswald was stupid. Oswald was presented a golden opportunity to achieve fame by killing JFK. His options were limited. The time and place were dictated to him. He had to smuggle his rifle into work and then leave it behind when he fled the scene. Your whole premise is that Oswald planned to get away with the crime. I don't think that even crossed his mind. I think he was perfectly willing to trade his life for JFKs just as the three previous presidential assassins had done. Booth couldn't have been more conspicuous after he shot Lincoln. Everybody in the theater knew who he was when he leapt from Lincoln's box onto the stage. Guiteau and Czolgosz both committed their crimes at close range knowing they would be apprehended immediately. They didn't seem to care. Why do you assume Oswald would have.
You have your supposed lone gunman using the wrong kind of ammo to have caused the bullet fragmentation seen on the JFK autopsy skull x-rays.
This isn't even a close call. No FMJ bullet would have exploded into dozens of tiny fragments and several sizable fragments, in addition to depositing a large fragment, two small fragments, and several tiny fragments 1 cm below its alleged entry point. Such behavior for FMJ bullets is unknown in forensic science. Revealingly, the HSCA's medical panel declined to cite a single case where an FMJ bullet had behaved in this manner, even though they knew this was an issue.
Can you cite an expert in either wound ballistics or forensic medicine who shares your opinion on this or is this just another of your amateurish arguments.?
Again, these are just a few of the implausible claims of the lone-gunman theory.
The only implausible claims are the ones made by you.
-
Plausibility is the enemy of an interesting story.
-
Plausibility is the enemy of an interesting story.
Bingo!
-
Oswald was more than capable of making the shots that killed JFK. His longest shot was only 88 yards, less than half the distance he had to qualify at in the USMC. [quite]
Not one of the rifle tests that have been done to date have duplicated all of the conditions under which the supposed lone-gunman would have had to fire. In the one rifle test that duplicated most of those conditions, the 1967 CBS rifle test, only one of the 12 riflemen scored two hits in the required timeframe on the first attempt, and that was only because the test counted shots as "hits" even if they landed far down on the back or far out on the shoulder of the target silhouette, at least tripling the size of the target compared to Oswald's alleged shooting feat.
This one has been a favorite red herring argument of the CTs for years. No shooting in the history of firearms has ever been duplicated because every shooting has its own set of variables that cannot be duplicated. There is nothing about Oswald's shooting of JFK with his Carcano rifle that was beyond his capabilities.
Tell us why it is necessary to prove when Oswald zeroed his rifle. Is that a legal requirement to prove somebody committed a homicide with a firearm?
Now you are just making things up. Nobody put Oswald at another location in the TSBD DURING the shooting. Your lie refutes itself. How could Oswald be on the first AND second floors during the shooting. It's amazing somebody who has been at this as long as you have could come up with a claim so wacky.
So?
Oswald didn't buy the rifle for the purpose of killing JFK because he couldn't have possibly known 8 months prior to the act, he would be handed an opportunity to do that. A firearm is only traceable if the authorities have the weapon in their possession. When Oswald took the shot at Walker, he was able to leave the scene with his weapon. He didn't have that option when he killed JFK. Leaving the building with the rifle was not an option. Imagine if Oswald was holding the rifle when Baker confronted him. The encounter would have ended very differently and possibly badly for Baker since Oswald would have still had a live round in the chamber. Oswald could have bought better rifle but it would have cost him more money.
So what's your point. Nobody has said Oswald was stupid. Oswald was presented a golden opportunity to achieve fame by killing JFK. His options were limited. The time and place were dictated to him. He had to smuggle his rifle into work and then leave it behind when he fled the scene. Your whole premise is that Oswald planned to get away with the crime. I don't think that even crossed his mind. I think he was perfectly willing to trade his life for JFKs just as the three previous presidential assassins had done. Booth couldn't have been more conspicuous after he shot Lincoln. Everybody in the theater knew who he was when he leapt from Lincoln's box onto the stage. Guiteau and Czolgosz both committed their crimes at close range knowing they would be apprehended immediately. They didn't seem to care. Why do you assume Oswald would have.
Can you cite an expert in either wound ballistics or forensic medicine who shares your opinion on this or is this just another of your amateurish arguments.?
The only implausible claims are the ones made by you.
You've got to love how the mind of a fanatical zealot works!
Oswald was more than capable of making the shots that killed JFK. His longest shot was only 88 yards, less than half the distance he had to qualify at in the USMC. [quite]
Not one of the rifle tests that have been done to date have duplicated all of the conditions under which the supposed lone-gunman would have had to fire. In the one rifle test that duplicated most of those conditions, the 1967 CBS rifle test, only one of the 12 riflemen scored two hits in the required timeframe on the first attempt, and that was only because the test counted shots as "hits" even if they landed far down on the back or far out on the shoulder of the target silhouette, at least tripling the size of the target compared to Oswald's alleged shooting feat.
The fanatical zealot dismisses any conclusion based on actual tests, but he still "knows for sure" that Oswald could have made the shots, without any evidence to back that up!
This one has been a favorite red herring argument of the CTs for years. No shooting in the history of firearms has ever been duplicated because every shooting has its own set of variables that cannot be duplicated. There is nothing about Oswald's shooting of JFK with his Carcano rifle that was beyond his capabilities.
And here the fanatical zealot claims that Oswald had the capabilities to make the shots, when in fact he he never knew Oswald, never saw him shoot a rifle and only relies on what he has been told.
Now you are just making things up. Nobody put Oswald at another location in the TSBD DURING the shooting. Your lie refutes itself. How could Oswald be on the first AND second floors during the shooting. It's amazing somebody who has been at this as long as you have could come up with a claim so wacky.
So?
Oswald could have eaten his lunch at the first floor lunch room and then went upstairs to get a drink. Nobody is claiming this happened exactly "during the shooting", but regardless the fanatical zealot "knows for a fact" that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. Never mind that nobody has actually ever been able to put him there!
-
...but he still "knows for sure" that Oswald could have made the shots, without any evidence to back that up!
Mr. SPECTER. Of what do your current duties consist?
Sergeant ZAHM. I am the NCO in charge of the Marksmanship Training Unit Armory at the Marksmanship Training Unit in the Weapons Training Battalion Marine Corps School, Quantico, Va.
Mr. SPECTER. Based on the tests of Mr. Oswald shown by those documents, how would you characterize his ability as a marksman?
Sergeant ZAHM. I would say in the Marine Corps he is a good shot, slightly above average, and as compared to the average male of his age throughout the civilian, throughout the United States, that he is an excellent shot.
Mr. SPECTER. How would you characterize that, as a difficult, not too difficult, easy, or how would you characterize that shot?
Sergeant ZAHM. With the equipment he had and with his ability, I consider it a very easy shot.
Sergeant ZAHM. I consider it still an easy shot, a little more difficult from the President's body position and increase in distance of approximately 40 feet, but I still consider it an easy shot for a man with the equipment he had and his ability.
Mr. SPECTER. Assuming that there were three shots fired in a range of 4.8 to 5.6 seconds, would that speed of firing at that range indicated in the prior questions be within Mr. Oswald's capabilities as a marksman?
Sergeant ZAHM. Yes.
--------------------------------------
Mr. SPECTER - Of what do your current duties consist?
Major ANDERSON - I am assistant head of the Marksmanship Branch, Headquarters Marine Corps.
Mr. SPECTER - I now show you a document marked as Commission Exhibit No. 902, which characterizes what was believed to have been the shot which struck President Kennedy in the head at a distance from rifle in window to the President of 265.3 feet, with the photograph through rifle scope identified on the document being the view which the marksman had of the President at the time the President was struck in the head, and I ask you again for an opinion as to the ease or difficulty of that shot, taking into consideration the capabilities of Mr. Oswald as a marksman, evidenced by the Marine Corps documents on him.
Major ANDERSON - I consider it to be not a particularly difficult shot at this short range, and that Oswald had full capabilities to make such a shot.
-------------------------------------
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us your position, Mr. Simmons?
Mr. SIMMONS. I am the Chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory of the Department of the Army.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do I understand your testimony to be that this rifle is as accurate as the current American military rifles?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. As far as we can determine from bench-rest firing.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you consider that to be a high degree of accuracy?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, the weapon is quite accurate.
JohnM
-
Mr. SPECTER. Of what do your current duties consist?
Sergeant ZAHM. I am the NCO in charge of the Marksmanship Training Unit Armory at the Marksmanship Training Unit in the Weapons Training Battalion Marine Corps School, Quantico, Va.
Mr. SPECTER. Based on the tests of Mr. Oswald shown by those documents, how would you characterize his ability as a marksman?
Sergeant ZAHM. I would say in the Marine Corps he is a good shot, slightly above average, and as compared to the average male of his age throughout the civilian, throughout the United States, that he is an excellent shot.
Mr. SPECTER. How would you characterize that, as a difficult, not too difficult, easy, or how would you characterize that shot?
Sergeant ZAHM. With the equipment he had and with his ability, I consider it a very easy shot.
Sergeant ZAHM. I consider it still an easy shot, a little more difficult from the President's body position and increase in distance of approximately 40 feet, but I still consider it an easy shot for a man with the equipment he had and his ability.
Mr. SPECTER. Assuming that there were three shots fired in a range of 4.8 to 5.6 seconds, would that speed of firing at that range indicated in the prior questions be within Mr. Oswald's capabilities as a marksman?
Sergeant ZAHM. Yes.
--------------------------------------
Mr. SPECTER - Of what do your current duties consist?
Major ANDERSON - I am assistant head of the Marksmanship Branch, Headquarters Marine Corps.
Mr. SPECTER - I now show you a document marked as Commission Exhibit No. 902, which characterizes what was believed to have been the shot which struck President Kennedy in the head at a distance from rifle in window to the President of 265.3 feet, with the photograph through rifle scope identified on the document being the view which the marksman had of the President at the time the President was struck in the head, and I ask you again for an opinion as to the ease or difficulty of that shot, taking into consideration the capabilities of Mr. Oswald as a marksman, evidenced by the Marine Corps documents on him.
Major ANDERSON - I consider it to be not a particularly difficult shot at this short range, and that Oswald had full capabilities to make such a shot.
-------------------------------------
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us your position, Mr. Simmons?
Mr. SIMMONS. I am the Chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory of the Department of the Army.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do I understand your testimony to be that this rifle is as accurate as the current American military rifles?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. As far as we can determine from bench-rest firing.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you consider that to be a high degree of accuracy?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, the weapon is quite accurate.
JohnM
Ask for evidence and get an opinion..... Hilarious!
-
Oswald's Marine Training
In accordance with standard Marine procedures, Oswald received extensive training in marksmanship.773 During the first week of an intensive 8-week training period he received instruction in sighting, aiming, and manipulation of the trigger.774 He went through a series of exercises called dry firing where he assumed all positions which would later be used in the qualification course.775 After familiarization with live ammunition in the .22 rifle and .22 pistol, Oswald, like all Marine recruits, received training on the rifle range at distances up to 500 yards, firing 50 rounds each day for five days.776
Following that training, Oswald was tested in December of 1956, and obtained a score of 212, which was 2 points above the minimum for qualifications as a "sharpshooter" in a scale of marksman--sharpshooter--expert.777 In May of 1959, on another range, Oswald scored 191, which was 1 point over the minimum for ranking as a "marksman."
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html#capability
(https://i.postimg.cc/MKFYPq03/Osw-ald-Marine-book.jpg)
Oswald rapid firing at over twice as far as the headshot.
(https://i.postimg.cc/zXckt8wd/osw-ald-marine-shooting-record-200y-rapida.jpg)
Oswald rapid firing at over three times as far as the headshot!
(https://i.postimg.cc/02BCWPGW/osw-ald-marine-shooting-record-300y-rapida.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/4NS1Lsv5/Osw-ald-in-Marines.jpg)
JohnM
-
(May 06,1959 MCAS | El Toro CA)
Oswald scored one point above the minimum for the lowest grade.
Marksman Qualification = 190
Oswald Score = 191
“To become qualified as a sharpshooter the Marine Corps is of the opinion that most Marines
with a reasonable amount of adaptability to weapons firing can be, so qualified.
Consequently a low marksman qualification indicates a “rather poor shot” (Vol 19 pages 16-18)
-
(May 06,1959 MCAS | El Toro CA)
Oswald scored one point above the minimum for the lowest grade.
Marksman Qualification = 190
Oswald Score = 191
“To become qualified as a sharpshooter the Marine Corps is of the opinion that most Marines
with a reasonable amount of adaptability to weapons firing can be, so qualified.
Consequently a low marksman qualification indicates a “rather poor shot” (Vol 19 pages 16-18)
(December 21, 1956; Camp Pendleton in California)
Oswald score qualified him as a SHARPSHOOTER!!!
Sharpshooter Qualification = 210
Oswald score = 212
BTW your quote came from Colonel Folsom who being a desk jockey was hardly qualified to be making expert shooting analysis. Hahaha. :D
Mr. ELY - What is your job in the Marine Corps, sir?
Colonel FOLSOM - My primary duty is head, Records Branch, Personnel Department, Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps, Washington, D.C.
----------------------
What do some actual Expert Marine Officers say about Oswald's shooting abilities.
Mr. SPECTER. Based on the tests of Mr. Oswald shown by those documents, how would you characterize his ability as a marksman?
Sergeant ZAHM. I would say in the Marine Corps he is a good shot, slightly above average, and as compared to the average male of his age throughout the civilian, throughout the United States, that he is an excellent shot.
How about the question of Oswald's capabilities to take the head shot?
Mr. SPECTER - I now show you a document marked as Commission Exhibit No. 902, which characterizes what was believed to have been the shot which struck President Kennedy in the head at a distance from rifle in window to the President of 265.3 feet, with the photograph through rifle scope identified on the document being the view which the marksman had of the President at the time the President was struck in the head, and I ask you again for an opinion as to the ease or difficulty of that shot, taking into consideration the capabilities of Mr. Oswald as a marksman, evidenced by the Marine Corps documents on him.
Major ANDERSON - I consider it to be not a particularly difficult shot at this short range, and that Oswald had full capabilities to make such a shot.
Then lastly, what was the difficulties of Oswald with his equipment of taking the Dealey Plaza shot?
Mr. SPECTER. How would you characterize that, as a difficult, not too difficult, easy, or how would you characterize that shot?
Sergeant ZAHM. With the equipment he had and with his ability, I consider it a very easy shot.
Oops!
And finally let's put Oswald's last Shooting Qualification into historical perspective.
Oswald was 17 when he scored "212" and then at 19 he scored "191", so Oswald was older and more experienced yet scored less, what changed between these two events? How does that even make sense, well, considering at the time Oswald's poor relationship with the Marines and the fact in a few months he was about to lie about his Mother to get out of the Marines and then defect to the Enemy and then try to reject his American citizenship, says all we need to know.
1. Oswald brings joy and happiness to the Marines and scores "212"
2. Oswald was court-martialled for illegal possession of a firearm.
3. Oswald was court-martialled for a second time for assaulting a superior officer.
4. Oswald spends time in the Brig and seemingly becomes disillusioned with this whole Marines thing.
5. Oswald's unit arrives in Taiwan, where he suffers a nervous breakdown and is sent back to Japan.
6. Delgado a fellow Marine describes Oswald on the firing range as not "giving a darn", seeing this as a "joke" and not being very "enthusiastic".
7. Oswald scores "191"
8. Just a few months after his "191", Oswald makes up a Bogus story about his injured Mother and is soon after released from active Duty.
9. Oswald defects to the enemy.
10. The enemy rejects Oswald, so Oswald in a rage of self harm, rips open his wrist which bleeds excessively and the wound requires a number of stitches. Oswald in his Historic Diary" describes his suicide attempt, "watch my life whirl away. I think to myself. "how easy to die" and "a sweet death""
JohnM
-
Mr. SPECTER. Of what do your current duties consist?
Sergeant ZAHM. I am the NCO in charge of the Marksmanship Training Unit Armory at the Marksmanship Training Unit in the Weapons Training Battalion Marine Corps School, Quantico, Va.
Mr. SPECTER. Based on the tests of Mr. Oswald shown by those documents, how would you characterize his ability as a marksman?
Sergeant ZAHM. I would say in the Marine Corps he is a good shot, slightly above average, and as compared to the average male of his age throughout the civilian, throughout the United States, that he is an excellent shot.
Mr. SPECTER. How would you characterize that, as a difficult, not too difficult, easy, or how would you characterize that shot?
Sergeant ZAHM. With the equipment he had and with his ability, I consider it a very easy shot.
Sergeant ZAHM. I consider it still an easy shot, a little more difficult from the President's body position and increase in distance of approximately 40 feet, but I still consider it an easy shot for a man with the equipment he had and his ability.
Mr. SPECTER. Assuming that there were three shots fired in a range of 4.8 to 5.6 seconds, would that speed of firing at that range indicated in the prior questions be within Mr. Oswald's capabilities as a marksman?
Sergeant ZAHM. Yes.
--------------------------------------
Mr. SPECTER - Of what do your current duties consist?
Major ANDERSON - I am assistant head of the Marksmanship Branch, Headquarters Marine Corps.
Mr. SPECTER - I now show you a document marked as Commission Exhibit No. 902, which characterizes what was believed to have been the shot which struck President Kennedy in the head at a distance from rifle in window to the President of 265.3 feet, with the photograph through rifle scope identified on the document being the view which the marksman had of the President at the time the President was struck in the head, and I ask you again for an opinion as to the ease or difficulty of that shot, taking into consideration the capabilities of Mr. Oswald as a marksman, evidenced by the Marine Corps documents on him.
Major ANDERSON - I consider it to be not a particularly difficult shot at this short range, and that Oswald had full capabilities to make such a shot.
-------------------------------------
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us your position, Mr. Simmons?
Mr. SIMMONS. I am the Chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory of the Department of the Army.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do I understand your testimony to be that this rifle is as accurate as the current American military rifles?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. As far as we can determine from bench-rest firing.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you consider that to be a high degree of accuracy?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, the weapon is quite accurate.
JohnM
The main point that the slick Specter avoids in this WC Q/A, is SPECTER's admittance that 3 SHOTS were fired in a MAX firing time of 5.6 SECONDS. THAT, was a mistake. The appraised difficulty of these 3 shots Never takes into consideration that the 3 shots were fired by the bolt action carcano rifle in only 5.6 SECONDS MAX. The only considerations specifically mentioned are: (1) Range, and, (2) Equipment used. This is typical of these 1 sided WC Q/A's. Especially the Q/A's conducted by Specter. Both the Kellerman and Tomlinson Q/A's are an absolute Railroading. Nowhere close to "fact finding".
-
The main point that the slick Specter avoids in this WC Q/A, is SPECTER's admittance that 3 SHOTS were fired in a MAX firing time of 5.6 SECONDS. THAT, was a mistake. The appraised difficulty of these 3 shots Never takes into consideration that the 3 shots were fired by the bolt action carcano rifle in only 5.6 SECONDS MAX. The only considerations specifically mentioned are: (1) Range, and, (2) Equipment used. This is typical of these 1 sided WC Q/A's. Especially the Q/A's conducted by Specter. Both the Kellerman and Tomlinson Q/A's are an absolute Railroading. Nowhere close to "fact finding".
I've never seen that Q/A you write about so I won't comment on that. 3 shots in 5.6 seconds was never the conclusion of the WC. They only pointed to it as a possible scenario, dependent upon the missed shot being the second shot. If either the first or third shot was the miss, the entire time for all three shots would have been indeterminant because they could not establish an exact moment when such a missed shot was fired.
I believe we now have a clear consensus among LNs that the first shot was the missed shot based on clues in the Z-film that the WC did not pick up on. We've had the advantage of decades to study that film and millions of eyeballs observing it. I believe if the WC had picked up on these clues, they would have concluded that first shot was the missed shot but since they had no definitive evidence of when the missed shot was fired, that had to at least allow for the possibility the second shot missed and the maximum firing time Oswald would have had would have been 5.6 seconds.
-
The debate over Oswald's proficiency reminds me of a quote from the late Tim McCarver, former MLB catcher turned announcer. The other announcers were mercilessly ribbing him about how slow he was. He finally interrupted and said, "Lest folks get the wrong idea here, I was a very slow ... MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYER. In high school, I won a five-county track meet in Ohio." When I look at Oswald's Marine rifle score books, this was not Joe Average with his .22 plinker. His scores at 500 yards were astounding to me. I think the debate over whether he could have made the shots is a non-starter, especially if there were only two shots.
-
(December 21, 1956; Camp Pendleton in California)
Oswald score qualified him as a SHARPSHOOTER!!!
Sharpshooter Qualification = 210
Oswald score = 212
Thumb1: ...3 years later he lost it when he did worse
Question: Do you have a personal knowledge of Oswald's ability with a rifle?
Delgado: It has been said that he was a terrific marksman, but at the range he couldn't prove to me that he was a good shot....
Well, in Oswald's particular case it was quite funny to watch because he would get a couple of discs,
maybe out of the possible ten he would get two or three "Maggie's Drawers". This is a red flag on a long pole and
this is run from left to right on the target itself. You don't see this too often on the firing line, not the Marine firing line....
------------
Mr. DELGADO - "With respect to his rifle. He didn't spend as much time as the rest of us did in the armory cleaning it up.
He would, when he was told to. Otherwise, he wouldn't come out by himself to clean it."
Mr. DELGADO - "He just qualified, that's it. He wasn't as enthusiastic as the rest of us.
We all loved--liked, you know, going to the range."
Mr. DELGADO - "Right; I was in the same line. By that I mean we were on line together, the same time,
but not firing at the same position, but at the same time, and I remember seeing his. It was a pretty big joke,
because he got a lot of "Maggie's drawers," you know, a lot of misses, but he didn't give a darn."
Mr. LIEBELER - Missed the target completely?
-
Thumb1: ...3 years later he lost it when he did worse
Question: Do you have a personal knowledge of Oswald's ability with a rifle?
Delgado: It has been said that he was a terrific marksman, but at the range he couldn't prove to me that he was a good shot....
Well, in Oswald's particular case it was quite funny to watch because he would get a couple of discs,
maybe out of the possible ten he would get two or three "Maggie's Drawers". This is a red flag on a long pole and
this is run from left to right on the target itself. You don't see this too often on the firing line, not the Marine firing line....
------------
Mr. DELGADO - "With respect to his rifle. He didn't spend as much time as the rest of us did in the armory cleaning it up.
He would, when he was told to. Otherwise, he wouldn't come out by himself to clean it."
Mr. DELGADO - "He just qualified, that's it. He wasn't as enthusiastic as the rest of us.
We all loved--liked, you know, going to the range."
Mr. DELGADO - "Right; I was in the same line. By that I mean we were on line together, the same time,
but not firing at the same position, but at the same time, and I remember seeing his. It was a pretty big joke,
because he got a lot of "Maggie's drawers," you know, a lot of misses, but he didn't give a darn."
Mr. LIEBELER - Missed the target completely?
Yawn.
Three years later, Oswald didn't intentionally get worse, it's as you quoted "he didn't give a darn" because the part of my post you purposely omitted and are obviously running away from, Oswald was court-martialled twice, spent time in the brig and at the time was just a few months away from defecting to the enemy.
Mr. DELGADO - He just qualified, that's it. He wasn't as enthusiastic as the rest of us. We all loved--liked, you know, going to the range.
BTW Capasse, it's clear that dealing with the evidence with intellectual honestly has never been a priority for you!
JohnM
-
The debate over Oswald's proficiency reminds me of a quote from the late Tim McCarver, former MLB catcher turned announcer. The other announcers were mercilessly ribbing him about how slow he was. He finally interrupted and said, "Lest folks get the wrong idea here, I was a very slow ... MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYER. In high school, I won a five-county track meet in Ohio." When I look at Oswald's Marine rifle score books, this was not Joe Average with his .22 plinker. His scores at 500 yards were astounding to me. I think the debate over whether he could have made the shots is a non-starter, especially if there were only two shots.
You're points are well taken. Oswald's scores in the USMC showed he was more than capable of making the shots that killed JFK. His score of 212 was just 2 points lower than that of Charles Whitman who two years later killed about a dozen people and wounded many more from the tower on the University of Texas campus. Whitman was much higher up than Oswald and shot people at much greater ranges than Oswald did when he killed JFK.
I missed the announcement of Tim McCarver's passing. Just this past February, I learned of the passing of Mickey Lolich who shared a moment of baseball history with McCarver. Lolich retired McCarver on a foul pop-up for the final out of the 1968 World Series. The photo of Lolich leaping into the arms of catcher Bill Freehan following the final out will live forever in the hearts and minds of long time Tiger fans such as myself.
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/hPEAAOSw8dBnMXn3/s-l400.jpg
The pre-series hype had been all about the match-up of 31 game winner Denny McLain vs. the Cardinals Bob Gibson who had posted an ERA of 1.12, the lowest since the dead ball era. Gibson beat McLain in both of their matchups but it was Mickey Lolich who stole the thunder from both of them when he pitched his third complete game victory on just two days rest to beat Gibson in game 7.
-
Yawn.
Three years later, Oswald didn't intentionally get worse, it's as you quoted "he didn't give a darn" because the part of my post you purposely omitted and are obviously running away from, Oswald was court-martialled twice, spent time in the brig and at the time was just a few months away from defecting to the enemy.
Mr. DELGADO - He just qualified, that's it. He wasn't as enthusiastic as the rest of us. We all loved--liked, you know, going to the range.
BTW Capasse, it's clear that dealing with the evidence with intellectual honestly has never been a priority for you!
JohnM
:D with 'Maggie's Drawers' 3 out 10
and 3 years later he did worse.
-
:D with 'Maggie's Drawers' 3 out 10
and 3 years later he did worse.
3 out of 10 is about 1 out of 3. Oswald got Maggie's Drawers on one of his three shots in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/1963. It seems his shooting that day was in line with the proficiency he showed while in the USMC.
-
:D with 'Maggie's Drawers' 3 out 10
and 3 years later he did worse.
Multiple laughing Emoji's
Hmmm, who to trust, my Marine Experts or Delgado who could only score 1 point better than an "unenthusiastic" Oswald who "didn't give a darn"? Ouch!
Mr. LIEBELER - And which one were you?
Mr. DELGADO - I was---I shot about 192.
JohnM
-
Multiple laughing Emoji's
Hmmm, who to trust, my Marine Experts or Delgado who could only score 1 point better than an "unenthusiastic" Oswald who "didn't give a darn"? Ouch!
Mr. LIEBELER - And which one were you?
Mr. DELGADO - I was---I shot about 192.
JohnM
Yet, His latest score categorized him as a "rather poor shot"
(May 06,1959 MCAS | El Toro CA)
Oswald scored one point above the minimum for the lowest grade.
Marksman Qualification = 190
Oswald Score = 191
“To become qualified as a sharpshooter the Marine Corps is of the opinion that most Marines
with a reasonable amount of adaptability to weapons firing can be, so qualified.
Consequently a low marksman qualification indicates a “rather poor shot” (Vol 19 pages 16-18)
-
Yet, His latest score categorized him as a "rather poor shot"
(May 06,1959 MCAS | El Toro CA)
Oswald scored one point above the minimum for the lowest grade.
Marksman Qualification = 190
Oswald Score = 191
“To become qualified as a sharpshooter the Marine Corps is of the opinion that most Marines
with a reasonable amount of adaptability to weapons firing can be, so qualified.
Consequently a low marksman qualification indicates a “rather poor shot” (Vol 19 pages 16-18)
Even the lowest grade requires some proficiency with a rifle to get a passing score. The USMC doesn't hand out participation trophies.
-
Even the lowest grade requires some proficiency with a rifle to get a passing score. The USMC doesn't hand out participation trophies.
“To become qualified as a sharpshooter the Marine Corps is of the opinion that most Marines
with a reasonable amount of adaptability to weapons firing can be, so qualified.
Consequently a low marksman qualification indicates a “rather poor shot” (Vol 19 pages 16-18)
-
“To become qualified as a sharpshooter the Marine Corps is of the opinion that most Marines
with a reasonable amount of adaptability to weapons firing can be, so qualified.
Consequently a low marksman qualification indicates a “rather poor shot” (Vol 19 pages 16-18)
:D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D
What do some actual Expert Marine Officers say about Oswald's shooting abilities.
Mr. SPECTER. Based on the tests of Mr. Oswald shown by those documents, how would you characterize his ability as a marksman?
Sergeant ZAHM. I would say in the Marine Corps he is a good shot, slightly above average, and as compared to the average male of his age throughout the civilian, throughout the United States, that he is an excellent shot.
How about the question of Oswald's capabilities to take the head shot?
Mr. SPECTER - I now show you a document marked as Commission Exhibit No. 902, which characterizes what was believed to have been the shot which struck President Kennedy in the head at a distance from rifle in window to the President of 265.3 feet, with the photograph through rifle scope identified on the document being the view which the marksman had of the President at the time the President was struck in the head, and I ask you again for an opinion as to the ease or difficulty of that shot, taking into consideration the capabilities of Mr. Oswald as a marksman, evidenced by the Marine Corps documents on him.
Major ANDERSON - I consider it to be not a particularly difficult shot at this short range, and that Oswald had full capabilities to make such a shot.
Then lastly, what was the difficulties of Oswald with his equipment of taking the Dealey Plaza shot?
Mr. SPECTER. How would you characterize that, as a difficult, not too difficult, easy, or how would you characterize that shot?
Sergeant ZAHM. With the equipment he had and with his ability, I consider it a very easy shot.
-
:D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D
What do some actual Expert Marine Officers say about Oswald's shooting abilities.
Mr. SPECTER. Based on the tests of Mr. Oswald shown by those documents, how would you characterize his ability as a marksman?
Sergeant ZAHM. I would say in the Marine Corps he is a good shot, slightly above average, and as compared to the average male of his age throughout the civilian, throughout the United States, that he is an excellent shot.
How about the question of Oswald's capabilities to take the head shot?
Mr. SPECTER - I now show you a document marked as Commission Exhibit No. 902, which characterizes what was believed to have been the shot which struck President Kennedy in the head at a distance from rifle in window to the President of 265.3 feet, with the photograph through rifle scope identified on the document being the view which the marksman had of the President at the time the President was struck in the head, and I ask you again for an opinion as to the ease or difficulty of that shot, taking into consideration the capabilities of Mr. Oswald as a marksman, evidenced by the Marine Corps documents on him.
Major ANDERSON - I consider it to be not a particularly difficult shot at this short range, and that Oswald had full capabilities to make such a shot.
Then lastly, what was the difficulties of Oswald with his equipment of taking the Dealey Plaza shot?
Mr. SPECTER. How would you characterize that, as a difficult, not too difficult, easy, or how would you characterize that shot?
Sergeant ZAHM. With the equipment he had and with his ability, I consider it a very easy shot.
Blah Blah Blah ! Does nothing to change the fact:
Consequently a low marksman qualification indicates a “rather poor shot”
-
“To become qualified as a sharpshooter the Marine Corps is of the opinion that most Marines
with a reasonable amount of adaptability to weapons firing can be, so qualified.
Consequently a low marksman qualification indicates a “rather poor shot” (Vol 19 pages 16-18)
Even a "poor shot" by USMC standards requires proficiency with a rifle. To score 191, Oswald would have to be able to hit targets 200 yards away and more. His longest shot in Dealey Plaza as only 88 yards.
-
Blah Blah Blah ! Does nothing to change the fact:
Consequently a low marksman qualification indicates a “rather poor shot”
Yawn, is that all you got, Capasse?, You're a one trick pony and you can keep repeating some desk jockey's opinion till you're blue in the face, but the fact remains that the NCO in charge of the Marksmanship Training Unit Armory at the Marksmanship Training Unit in the Weapons Training Battalion Marine Corps School, Quantico, Va. tells us that as compared to the average male, Oswald was an Excellent shot.
And don't forget there is a reason for the Marine qualifications and a Marksman still qualifies as a Marine. So despite some pen pushers opinion, Oswald on the strength of his abilities would be defined as a capable Marine. Case closed!
----------------------------------
Is qualifying as a marksman good enough to be a marine?
AI Overview
Yes, qualifying as a "Marksman" is absolutely good enough to become and remain a United States Marine. It is the minimum passing score required on the rifle range, allowing you to earn your official Marksmanship badges (United States) and fulfill the service's foundational "Every Marine a Rifleman" requirement.
The hierarchy of marksmanship qualification in the USMC consists of three passing levels:
Expert: Scores between 305 and 350
Sharpshooter: Scores between 280 and 304
Marksman: Scores between 250 and 279 (affectionately known as the "pizza box" due to its shape)
While achieving a Marksman score means you passed, there are still key reasons many Marines strive to score higher:
Professional Advancement: High marksmanship scores yield points that positively impact your promotion chances. Consistently shooting Marksman—especially if you fail to improve over time—can make it harder to stand out against peers.
Graduation and Retention: Failing to achieve the minimum Marksman qualification can get a recruit dropped from training or a Marine administratively separated from the United States Marine Corps altogether.
While achieving Sharpshooter or Expert badges will earn you more bragging rights and professional points, simply qualifying as a Marksman proves you meet the baseline standard of a capable Marine
BTW, just think for a moment, if being a Marine "Marksman" qualifies you as a "poor shot", why the heck would the Marines who pride themselves as being Elite soldiers accept someone who couldn't shoot?
JohnM
-
Not that I think Oswald took the shots but the sloppiness and unprofessionalism of the shooting speaks of someone not proficient with a rifle.
Its a close distance shot and the shooter has plenty of time to line it up.
The target is JFK's head.
Of the three shots, two miss the target.
Some people go on about a professional hit but it was nothing of the sort. It was amateur hour.
There was at least a six second gap between JFK getting shot in the throat and the head shot. In that time JFK could have fallen to the floor of the limo or had his head hidden in Jackie's lap or the Secret Service could have done their job correctly or plenty of other possibilities. It's blind luck that JFK stayed upright to receive the fatal blow.
One of the shots missed everything!!
Anyone going on about professional hit squads needs to wake up.
It was certainly not beyond the capabilities of someone like Oswald to almost blow this easy opportunity.
-
Not that I think Oswald took the shots but the sloppiness and unprofessionalism of the shooting speaks of someone not proficient with a rifle.
Its a close distance shot and the shooter has plenty of time to line it up.
The target is JFK's head.
Of the three shots, two miss the target.
Some people go on about a professional hit but it was nothing of the sort. It was amateur hour.
There was at least a six second gap between JFK getting shot in the throat and the head shot. In that time JFK could have fallen to the floor of the limo or had his head hidden in Jackie's lap or the Secret Service could have done their job correctly or plenty of other possibilities. It's blind luck that JFK stayed upright to receive the fatal blow.
One of the shots missed everything!!
Anyone going on about professional hit squads needs to wake up.
It was certainly not beyond the capabilities of someone like Oswald to almost blow this easy opportunity.
The result of the "head shot" rendering damage far beyond the damage inflicted by the earlier shots.
-
Yawn, is that all you got, Capasse?,
JohnM
Thumb1: It is all I need.
A low marksman qualification score is considered [not by me or you] by the Marines to be a "rather poor shot"
-
11/22/63: there is insufficient evidence that he had even fired a gun in the previous 4 years.
Mr. Rankin: …there are a good many stories about his practicing with a gun, you know, around various rifle ranges and so forth,
we have checked those out and none of them stand up at all.
-
Not that I think Oswald took the shots but the sloppiness and unprofessionalism of the shooting speaks of someone not proficient with a rifle.
Its a close distance shot and the shooter has plenty of time to line it up.
The target is JFK's head.
Of the three shots, two miss the target.
Some people go on about a professional hit but it was nothing of the sort. It was amateur hour.
There was at least a six second gap between JFK getting shot in the throat and the head shot. In that time JFK could have fallen to the floor of the limo or had his head hidden in Jackie's lap or the Secret Service could have done their job correctly or plenty of other possibilities. It's blind luck that JFK stayed upright to receive the fatal blow.
One of the shots missed everything!!
Anyone going on about professional hit squads needs to wake up.
It was certainly not beyond the capabilities of someone like Oswald to almost blow this easy opportunity.
I'm not sure how sloppy and unprofessional it was if the M-C was the weapon. First shot (I tend to believe) is a little low and to the right. Second shot, bingo. I mentioned long ago playing golf with a guy who had been a military sniper for 23 years and was now teaching counterterroism.. He greatly surprised me by saying he certainly could have made the shots "but not with that rifle."
John Orr's Mafia theory has 4.15 seconds between the back shot and the head shot. As you do, he notes the risk of JFK slumping out of view during that period. He explains this (with a photo on page 46 of his "Analysis of Gunshots in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963," http://www.mountainrivercabins.com/JohnOrrReport.pdf) by a tree blocking the line of site from the County Records Building. That doesn't sound like the level of professionalism I might expect from a Mafia pro, but perhaps the plan was to wait and see if Oswald got the job done, knowing that anywhere along Elm would be an easy shot for a Mafia pro. (FWIW, Orr has Oswald's first shot being the back shot, but exiting the limo rather than passing through JBC; the second shot is also by Oswald and causes JBC's wounds except the wrist wound; the third shot is the head shot by a Mafia pro in the CRB, a fragment from which causes JBC's wrist wounds; followed almost immediately by a fourth shot, also from Oswald, that hits the pavement left of the limo.)
Certainly, "squads" of gunmen violates my demand for plausibilty, but Oswald and a one-shot pro is at least in the ballpark. The theory that there was only one gunman - not Oswald - and that the shots were intentionally sloppy to make them plausibly attributable to Oswald and his M-C seems far-fetched.
-
11/22/63: there is insufficient evidence that he had even fired a gun in the previous 4 years.
Mr. Rankin: …there are a good many stories about his practicing with a gun, you know, around various rifle ranges and so forth,
we have checked those out and none of them stand up at all.
Marina, however, was very explicit on page 231 of her HSCA testimony that he had disappeared with his rifle on "several occasions" for "several hours," saying he was "going to target practice or something like that" at a "practice range somewhere apparently." She clarified on page 255 that this was all "in Dallas." (Her WC testimony was definitely not as specific. He told her he had gone to practice at "Love Field," but only "once or twice" and she never saw him taking the rifle to practice. Jesus, what a mess - the WC tries to clear up the confusion on pages 397-398 of Volume V, and now she sees him carrying the rifle under his raincoat "only once" and she assumes he is going to Love Field because that is where the bus goes and she knows there is a lot of noise out at the airport that might cover the sound of a rifle.)
-
Marina, however, was very explicit on page 231 of her HSCA testimony that he had disappeared with his rifle on "several occasions" for "several hours," saying he was "going to target practice or something like that" at a "practice range somewhere apparently." She clarified on page 255 that this was all "in Dallas."
My problem with Marina is she is an admitted liar. WC had major concerns over that.
She seems to take it all back in the 90's with a statement to the Assassination Review Board.
A look at her side thru the years has to be considered in the forum in which she feels safe enough to speak openly.
https://jfk.boards.net/post/7364
There comes a lot of doubt because if it and brings out a major question, was Lee an FBI informant?
-
Ben Cole and I have articulated two tight, minimalist conspiracy theories – G2 (Cuba) and the Mafia respectively. I think we’re both talking about no more than five participants from conception through execution.
I know it’s fun to hypothesize elaborate conspiracies involving everyone but the kitchen sink, but this is just flat-out silly. Give it up, unless you acknowledge you’re just having fun and not trying to articulate a plausible theory.
This was a Presidential assassination. Anyone whose fingerprints were on it in any way was going to be executed. Every real-world conspiracy of any significance involves the minimal number of participants – and this would be true in spades of a Presidential assassination. And it sure as hell wouldn’t have involved an elaborate cover-up extending to Bethesda and beyond. This is just flat-out silly. Weird and fun, but flat-out silly.
Larry Hancock says Someone Would Have Talked – and he thinks someone did. That’s the problem with any conspiracy that isn’t the absolute minimalist scenario. Some of the people Larry thinks talked would not have been allowed anywhere near a Presidential assassination conspiracy unless the planners were Curly, Larry and Moe.
Forget all the “ideologically-oriented” conspiracies. Allen Dulles? Come on, this is science-fiction. Only the following had a real-honest-God motive for whacking JFK:
1. LBJ: perfect
2. The Mafia: perfect
3. Right-wing Texas oilmen: perfect
4. Those with an anti-Castro motive (which overlaps with 1-3 above): good, but somewhat more “ideological” than 1-3 above
5. Castro and/or his supporters: not nearly as strong, but plausible
There are only two plausible roles for Oswald:
1. Knows he’s a gunman in a pro-Castro conspiracy
2. Thinks he’s a gunman in an pro-Castro conspiracy
The key to the plausibility of any conspiracy theory is the implausibility of the SBT. The SBT is possible, but it is implausible for multiple reasons. If Oswald fired only two shots, it is entirely plausible that the rapid bang-bang heard by several witnesses was Oswald’s second shot and another from someplace like the Dal-Tex building or County Records building (as I believe) or the Grassy Knoll (as Ben suggests). I believe my two buildings are simply more plausible.
This is what I think we realistically have to work with. It is possible to construct a tight, highly compartmentalized, realistic conspiracy with any of the five candidates suggested above. Dan O’Meara suggested one with just LBJ, Byrd (who owned the TSBD building), Cason (president of the TSBD business), Bill Shelley, and a hitman other than Oswald; I thought it fell apart inside the TSBD, but it’s in the ballpark of what I’m talking about.
As Dan’s did, a tight, minimalist conspiracy could involve combinations of 1-4 above, but you’d have to make the connections in a tight, minimalist, plausible way.
Even with a tight, minimalist conspiracy, the trick is always to bring Oswald into it in a plausible way. LBJ and Oswald, the Mafia and Oswald, right-wing Texas oilmen and Oswald? Those are challenges. Pro-Castroites or anti-Castroites? Much easier. Of course, LBJ, the Mafia or Texas oilmen could have brought Oswald in via a contact in the pro- or anti-Castro community, but then we have to make a plausible connection between them and this middleman.
Anyway, if I were retained to construct a plausible conspiracy to sell to a jury or the court of public opinion, I believe I would have to work within these realistic parameters. The fact that even very prominent voices in the CT community can’t see that what they are peddling is science fiction is very puzzling. The fact that they pointedly ignore the far more realistic scenarios is not only puzzling but somewhat suspicious. The conspiracy-prone mindset does gravitate toward dark intrigue and unnecessary complexity, so this may be a large part of the explanation.
The last time we discussed this issue you were slightly hysterical and ended up storming off the forum.
This OP offers a far more level-headed and even-handed assessment of the theory I was putting forward.
I'm not sure why you think it falls apart inside the TSBD. If I have an area of specific focus in this case it is exactly what happened in the TSBD building around the time of the assassination and it is my research in this specific area that has led me to conclude that Oswald did not take the shots.
But you have squarely hit the nail on the head - Oswald's involvement.
If I were lazy or dishonest I would try to argue that Oswald was just a fortunate coincidence. The plot was underway and the lucky conspirators had the perfect patsy land in their lap...a traitorous Commie ex-Marine on whom to pin the assassination.
But Oswald was clearly involved IMO. I am convinced that after he left the TSBD that day he was heading for the border when Tippit intervened.
I can only offer wild speculation as to how Oswald could have possibly been manoeuvred into his position as willing participant and have to concede it is the weak point of the theory I am proposing.
It must be said that, to a large extent, Oswald outside the TSBD was a 'black box' of sorts. He lived alone and kept himself to himself so it's hard to do anything other than speculate.
The conspiracy I propose involves LBJ, Harold Byrd, Jack Cason, Bill Shelley and Jack Dougherty with Oswald as a patsy.
Georges De Morenschildt is also a person of interest.
-
I'm not sure how sloppy and unprofessional it was if the M-C was the weapon. First shot (I tend to believe) is a little low and to the right. Second shot, bingo. I mentioned long ago playing golf with a guy who had been a military sniper for 23 years and was now teaching counterterroism.. He greatly surprised me by saying he certainly could have made the shots "but not with that rifle."
John Orr's Mafia theory has 4.15 seconds between the back shot and the head shot. As you do, he notes the risk of JFK slumping out of view during that period. He explains this (with a photo on page 46 of his "Analysis of Gunshots in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963," http://www.mountainrivercabins.com/JohnOrrReport.pdf) by a tree blocking the line of site from the County Records Building. That doesn't sound like the level of professionalism I might expect from a Mafia pro, but perhaps the plan was to wait and see if Oswald got the job done, knowing that anywhere along Elm would be an easy shot for a Mafia pro. (FWIW, Orr has Oswald's first shot being the back shot, but exiting the limo rather than passing through JBC; the second shot is also by Oswald and causes JBC's wounds except the wrist wound; the third shot is the head shot by a Mafia pro in the CRB, a fragment from which causes JBC's wrist wounds; followed almost immediately by a fourth shot, also from Oswald, that hits the pavement left of the limo.)
Certainly, "squads" of gunmen violates my demand for plausibilty, but Oswald and a one-shot pro is at least in the ballpark. The theory that there was only one gunman - not Oswald - and that the shots were intentionally sloppy to make them plausibly attributable to Oswald and his M-C seems far-fetched.
I'm not sure how sloppy and unprofessional it was if the M-C was the weapon.
If the weapon really was the M-C it could not have been any more sloppy and unprofessional. What professional would use that rifle??!!
It is interesting to note that both witnesses who had a good look at the rifle while it was being used failed to notice a scope. Euins, in particular, as he goes into quite some detail about what he could see of the rifle and that he could only see the assassins bald spot as he lowered his head to the rifle to take the shot (indicating the head was tilted to the left indicating a left handed shooter. Perhaps).
-
The last time we discussed this issue you were slightly hysterical and ended up storming off the forum.
I just reviewed that discussion, which extended over several threads over a period of months. No, I did not "storm off the forum" as a result of anything to do with your LBJ-Byrd theory. It seems to me, as I suggested back then, that the theory becomes progressively less plausible as we work our way down. LBJ and Byrd? OK, fine, plausible. Cason and Shelley? Why? Why would they risk execution by participating in the JFKA? Did Byrd have that sort of leverage over Cason and Cason over Shelley? Where is there any evidence that they benefitted in the slightest from their supposed participation? Dougherty - does he really seem like a plausible gunman? I also don't believe you emphasized at that time that you believed Oswald was actually involved, which was why I was making facetious (but exceedingly clever and humorous!) remarks about Shelley having him in a headlock and administering noogies while some hitman did the deed. Flesh it all out and I'll listen, but on the surface it sounds less plausible to me than the Mafia or anti-Castro theories. Both of those merely required convincing Oswald he was part of a pro-Castro plot.
-
My problem with Marina is she is an admitted liar. WC had major concerns over that.
She seems to take it all back in the 90's with a statement to the Assassination Review Board.
A look at her side thru the years has to be considered in the forum in which she feels safe enough to speak openly.
https://jfk.boards.net/post/7364
There comes a lot of doubt because if it and brings out a major question, was Lee an FBI informant?
You quoted the portion of my post before I edited it to include what a mess her WC testimony was and how it got distinctly "better" at the HSCA. I'll have to look into her statement to the ARRB that "I absolutely believe that Lee Oswald was the informant on the arrest of Lawrence Miller and Donnell Whitter on November 18, 1963" because that's news to me.
-
I'm not sure how sloppy and unprofessional it was if the M-C was the weapon. First shot (I tend to believe) is a little low and to the right. Second shot, bingo. I mentioned long ago playing golf with a guy who had been a military sniper for 23 years and was now teaching counterterroism.. He greatly surprised me by saying he certainly could have made the shots "but not with that rifle."
It's a mortal lock that SOMEBODY made the shots with that rifle given that the only 2 recovered bullets and 3 recovered shells were fired by "that rifle".
There is ample evidence that somebody was Oswald.
John Orr's Mafia theory has 4.15 seconds between the back shot and the head shot.
Almost 5 seconds actually. Back shot at or about Z222. Head shot at Z313. 91/18.3 = 4.97.
As you do, he notes the risk of JFK slumping out of view during that period. He explains this (with a photo on page 46 of his "Analysis of Gunshots in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963," http://www.mountainrivercabins.com/JohnOrrReport.pdf) by a tree blocking the line of site from the County Records Building.
There is zero evidence any shot was fired from the County Records Building. Like all conspiracy theories, it is entirely speculation and no substance.
That doesn't sound like the level of professionalism I might expect from a Mafia pro, but perhaps the plan was to wait and see if Oswald got the job done, knowing that anywhere along Elm would be an easy shot for a Mafia pro.
Seriously? Does that actually make sense to you? Why do people feel compelled to dream up such bizarre scenarios when there is a simple and straight forward one that is supported by a body of evidence that screams "OSWALD DID IT".
(FWIW, Orr has Oswald's first shot being the back shot, but exiting the limo rather than passing through JBC;[/quote]
Now that's a real Magic Bullet scenario. the second shot is also by Oswald and causes JBC's wounds except the wrist wound; the third shot is the head shot by a Mafia pro in the CRB, a fragment from which causes JBC's wrist wounds; followed almost immediately by a fourth shot, also from Oswald, that hits the pavement left of the limo.)
I guess when one doesn't limit oneself to scenarios that are supported by real evidence, anything is possible.
Certainly, "squads" of gunmen violates my demand for plausibilty, but Oswald and a one-shot pro is at least in the ballpark.
That one isn't even in Yellowstone Park.
The theory that there was only one gunman - not Oswald - and that the shots were intentionally sloppy to make them plausibly attributable to Oswald and his M-C seems far-fetched.
As do all theories which don't have Oswald firing all the shots in Dealey Plaza that day.
-
I'm not sure how sloppy and unprofessional it was if the M-C was the weapon.
If the weapon really was the M-C it could not have been any more sloppy and unprofessional. What professional would use that rifle??!!
It is interesting to note that both witnesses who had a good look at the rifle while it was being used failed to notice a scope. Euins, in particular, as he goes into quite some detail about what he could see of the rifle and that he could only see the assassins bald spot as he lowered his head to the rifle to take the shot (indicating the head was tilted to the left indicating a left handed shooter. Perhaps).
Well, yes, no professional would use that weapon. I was merely saying that, considering the weapon, the back and head shots were pretty good. If Oswald was a patsy gunman, of course, then it would only make sense to have him use the weapon he actually owned and that would be easily traceable to him. Maybe he'd get lucky and actually accomplish the mission. If he didn't, then our Mafia pro in the County Records Building would do so with ammunition and on a trajectory plausibly attributable to the patsy. Where I actually like this scenario is that (1) it provides us with bad guys with a far, far stronger motive than Oswald would have had, and (2) it doesn't require Oswald to be a half-crazy sociopath, which I don't think he was. I'm not planting my flag in it, but I do see it as a plausible, not-entirely-evidence-free alternative to the LN narrative.
-
You quoted the portion of my post before I edited it to include what a mess her WC testimony was and how it got distinctly "better" at the HSCA. I'll have to look into her statement to the ARRB that "I absolutely believe that Lee Oswald was the informant on the arrest of Lawrence Miller and Donnell Whitter on November 18, 1963" because that's news to me.
More about it here:
Inside Connection | Gun Sting
https://jfk.boards.net/post/6992/thread
-
I just reviewed that discussion, which extended over several threads over a period of months. No, I did not "storm off the forum" as a result of anything to do with your LBJ-Byrd theory. It seems to me, as I suggested back then, that the theory becomes progressively less plausible as we work our way down. LBJ and Byrd? OK, fine, plausible. Cason and Shelley? Why? Why would they risk execution by participating in the JFKA? Did Byrd have that sort of leverage over Cason and Cason over Shelley? Where is there any evidence that they benefitted in the slightest from their supposed participation? Dougherty - does he really seem like a plausible gunman? I also don't believe you emphasized at that time that you believed Oswald was actually involved, which was why I was making facetious (but exceedingly clever and humorous!) remarks about Shelley having him in a headlock and administering noogies while some hitman did the deed. Flesh it all out and I'll listen, but on the surface it sounds less plausible to me than the Mafia or anti-Castro theories. Both of those merely required convincing Oswald he was part of a pro-Castro plot.
Your points of opposition are flimsy, to say the least.
Did Byrd have leverage over Cason, did Cason have leverage over Shelley???
What's with the leverage?
No one is being forced into this. Think of it as a small group of like-minded men who genuinely believe that JFK is something worse than the Anti-Christ (which a lot of evangelical Texans really did believe). The part of America we are talking about seems to specialise in a very extreme and violent way of looking at the world.
Who benefitted from the assassination? Do you mean financially?
If you genuinely believe you are protecting your family, your state, your country and your God, where do benefits come into it? The only people exposed in this plot are Shelley and Dougherty. These are expendable foot soldiers who believe in their own version of the Greater Good.
There is zero exposure for LBJ, Byrd and Cason.
Saying that, LBJ avoided political disgrace and prison thanks to the assassination. Not to mention becoming the most powerful man in the world.
Byrd made untold millions from it.
And Cason's wife had her fantasy of JFK being shot and killed finally fulfilled.
Dougherty - does he really seem like a plausible gunman?
100% he does.
The assassination is sloppy and unprofessional. Its success rested on a gigantic slice of luck. It was an easy shot and the assassin almost blew it. Why not Dougherty? He was in the building at the time. His movements unaccounted for. His own account of his movements is beyond belief. He freely admits to being on the 6th floor minutes before and after the assassination (amazingly, he never has to give an account of what he saw at those times).
On top of that, he seems to have had some sort of mental health issue which might have worked in the conspirators favour if he had been arrested. All Dougherty would have known about the conspiracy is Shelley. If he talked (which I doubt he would) it would have been his word against the word of Bill Shelley.
This theory is tight and plausible.
The only weak point is how Oswald fitted into it.
-
Well, yes, no professional would use that weapon. I was merely saying that, considering the weapon, the back and head shots were pretty good. If Oswald was a patsy gunman, of course, then it would only make sense to have him use the weapon he actually owned and that would be easily traceable to him. Maybe he'd get lucky and actually accomplish the mission. If he didn't, then our Mafia pro in the County Records Building would do so with ammunition and on a trajectory plausibly attributable to the patsy. Where I actually like this scenario is that (1) it provides us with bad guys with a far, far stronger motive than Oswald would have had, and (2) it doesn't require Oswald to be a half-crazy sociopath, which I don't think he was. I'm not planting my flag in it, but I do see it as a plausible, not-entirely-evidence-free alternative to the LN narrative.
I can't buy the mafia bringing that kind of heat on their organisation.
Killing the President is like waging war against the country. You are taking on the armed forces, all law enforcement agencies and the citizenry. The mafia is an organisation, no one person gets to choose to do something that could bring the whole country down on the rest of the organisation and there's no way they would take that chance.
The mafia worked in silence and secrecy. It pretended it didn't even exist.
And what was the motive? That they were going to be persecuted for being a criminal organisation?
I'm pretty sure that was already going on and they were handling it just fine.
-
Your points of opposition are flimsy, to say the least.
Did Byrd have leverage over Cason, did Cason have leverage over Shelley???
What's with the leverage?
No one is being forced into this. Think of it as a small group of like-minded men who genuinely believe that JFK is something worse than the Anti-Christ (which a lot of evangelical Texans really did believe). The part of America we are talking about seems to specialise in a very extreme and violent way of looking at the world.
Who benefitted from the assassination? Do you mean financially?
If you genuinely believe you are protecting your family, your state, your country and your God, where do benefits come into it? The only people exposed in this plot are Shelley and Dougherty. These are expendable foot soldiers who believe in their own version of the Greater Good.
There is zero exposure for LBJ, Byrd and Cason.
Saying that, LBJ avoided political disgrace and prison thanks to the assassination. Not to mention becoming the most powerful man in the world.
Byrd made untold millions from it.
And Cason's wife had her fantasy of JFK being shot and killed finally fulfilled.
Dougherty - does he really seem like a plausible gunman?
100% he does.
The assassination is sloppy and unprofessional. Its success rested on a gigantic slice of luck. It was an easy shot and the assassin almost blew it. Why not Dougherty? He was in the building at the time. His movements unaccounted for. His own account of his movements is beyond belief. He freely admits to being on the 6th floor minutes before and after the assassination (amazingly, he never has to give an account of what he saw at those times).
On top of that, he seems to have had some sort of mental health issue which might have worked in the conspirators favour if he had been arrested. All Dougherty would have known about the conspiracy is Shelley. If he talked (which I doubt he would) it would have been his word against the word of Bill Shelley.
This theory is tight and plausible.
The only weak point is how Oswald fitted into it.
We could go round and round, but I have a "plausibility problem" with LBJ putting 100% faith in Byrd to get this done (don't tell me how) ... Byrd putting 100% faith in Cason to get this done (don't tell me how) ... Cason putting 100% faith in Shelley to get this done (don't tell me how) ... and Shelley somehow convincing Dougherty. Once the dominoes start to fall, it's likely going to lead right back up the chain - Dougherty knows Shelley convinced him, Shelley knows Cason convinced him, etc., etc., the net result being that LBJ is actually putting 100% faith in Dougherty (or at least in "whomever Byrd finds to carry out the deed"). Is it really plausible that, faced with possible execution, Dougherty is going to remain rock-solid and take the fall or, if he doesn't, that Shelley is going to remain rock-solid and trust in his lawyer's ability to portray Dougherty as a nutcase? For this to work, the participants below LBJ and Byrd would either have to have out-of-control, foaming-at-the-mouth hatred of JFK or to have been promised some incredible financial payoff. For this to be plausible, I think you'd have to flesh out in greater detail who Cason, Shelley and Dougherty really were both before and after the JFKA - is there any evidence of this sort of hatred or payoff? And, yes, fitting Oswald into that scenario is a complete head-scratcher to me. I just can't see LBJ taking all these incredible risks; if he wanted JFK dead, I think we'd be talking about a two-person conspiracy - LBJ and some gunman known only to him, and a hit far less complex than Dealey Plaza. Just my $0.02 worth; I realize I'm not going to talk you out of this theory, but I think it would need to be fleshed out in much greater detail.
-
I can't buy the mafia bringing that kind of heat on their organisation.
Killing the President is like waging war against the country. You are taking on the armed forces, all law enforcement agencies and the citizenry. The mafia is an organisation, no one person gets to choose to do something that could bring the whole country down on the rest of the organisation and there's no way they would take that chance.
The mafia worked in silence and secrecy. It pretended it didn't even exist.
And what was the motive? That they were going to be persecuted for being a criminal organisation?
I'm pretty sure that was already going on and they were handling it just fine.
Apparently, the structure of the Mafia at the time was such that a hit on JFK would not have required full "Commission" approval. From what I have read, Marcello and Trafficante could have undertaken it, and certainly with the concurrence of Giancana. I could see something not unlike your scenario - "Just get it done, Carlos [Marcello], and don't tell us how." Marcello in particular had good reason for a visceral hatred of RFK - and he just happened to be the Don of New Orleans and pretty much in control of Dallas. All of the Mafia despised JFK and RFK because RFK's campaign against organized crime was not only a threat but was viewed as a betrayal of promises they thought they had been made when they helped Joe Kennedy get JFK elected. Lastly, a pro-Castro patsy was literally perfect. If the JFKA not only led to the end of his Presidency and the installation of a President whose hatred of RFK knew no bounds but also led to an invasion of Cuba and the restoration of the Mafia's incredibly lucrative Cuban operation - well, WOW! I just don't see any point in the Mafia-did-it scenario where I bump up against a serious plausibility problem. The only serious plausibility issue I have is with those who try to insist the Mafia would've had any use for a loose cannon like Ruby. This leaves me only with the same problem you have: how do bring Oswald into the plot?
-
We could go round and round, but I have a "plausibility problem" with LBJ putting 100% faith in Byrd to get this done (don't tell me how) ... Byrd putting 100% faith in Cason to get this done (don't tell me how) ... Cason putting 100% faith in Shelley to get this done (don't tell me how) ... and Shelley somehow convincing Dougherty. Once the dominoes start to fall, it's likely going to lead right back up the chain - Dougherty knows Shelley convinced him, Shelley knows Cason convinced him, etc., etc., the net result being that LBJ is actually putting 100% faith in Dougherty (or at least in "whomever Byrd finds to carry out the deed"). Is it really plausible that, faced with possible execution, Dougherty is going to remain rock-solid and take the fall or, if he doesn't, that Shelley is going to remain rock-solid and trust in his lawyer's ability to portray Dougherty as a nutcase? For this to work, the participants below LBJ and Byrd would either have to have out-of-control, foaming-at-the-mouth hatred of JFK or to have been promised some incredible financial payoff. For this to be plausible, I think you'd have to flesh out in greater detail who Cason, Shelley and Dougherty really were both before and after the JFKA - is there any evidence of this sort of hatred or payoff? And, yes, fitting Oswald into that scenario is a complete head-scratcher to me. I just can't see LBJ taking all these incredible risks; if he wanted JFK dead, I think we'd be talking about a two-person conspiracy - LBJ and some gunman known only to him, and a hit far less complex than Dealey Plaza. Just my $0.02 worth; I realize I'm not going to talk you out of this theory, but I think it would need to be fleshed out in much greater detail.
It's just an idea, it's just speculation, it's just a theory.
Your counter-arguments are just really weird.
What's all this about "100% faith"?
It'd be good to have a reasonable discussion about it but you don't seem willing to accept that a small group of people with the same views could organise something so incredibly simple...firing a rifle!
LBJ and Byrd benefitted beyond measure. Cason was on the FBI radar for a reported comment about shooting JFK.
Shelley and Dougherty 'believed in the cause'.
Fire a rifle out of a window and blame someone else. That's it. You don't seem to appreciate the simplicity of it because I suspect you don't want to. Here's a good example:
"I just can't see LBJ taking all these incredible risks;"
Firstly, he has taken zero risks as has already been explained but you deliberately refuse to acknowledge that because you need to come up with some kind of argument, no matter how weak.
In the scenario I have proposed name one 'incredible risk' LBJ has taken.
LBJ, Byrd and Cason have zero exposure. A few private conversations of which there can be no record.
And your "faced with possible execution" argument means nobody did it.
The assassination never happened because you don't accept that anyone could possibly do such a thing faced with possible execution.
According to you nobody has ever been murdered!!
And your suggestion that LBJ would use a gunman who he knew is bananas.
LBJ was about to lose literally everything. His single hope was that JFK died and he became President. This was his one and only hope of avoiding utter disgrace and imprisonment. This is the motive.
So he made it happen.
Is it a coincidence that JFK was shot from the building owned by one of his best friends or that this best friend was awarded one of the first military contracts of the LBJ era? Or that this best friend founded the Civil Air Patrol of which Oswald had been a member or who was a good friend of De Morenschildt, the man who befriended Oswald? The same best friend who made a killing buying stocks in his own company weeks before the assassination and who happened to be out of the country for the first time ever at the time of the assassination?
Of course all this could be coincidence but it can also be used to suggest a theory regarding the assassination.
You are 100% correct when you say you won't be able to talk me out of this theory but that's not to do with the strength of the theory, it's to do with the weakness of your arguments.
-
I will try once more and then I won't beat it to death. You may have the last word. I'm truly puzzled as to why you view your scenario as completely plausible and I'm having difficulty seeing it.
Yes, your theory has minimal participants, so that’s a plus. But those five participants extend from the Vice President of the United States to a possibly mentally challenged guy who is still a lowly shipping clerk after eleven years of employment at the TSBD. (Dougherty lived until 1994, even though in your scenario he would seem to have been a prime candidate for an almost immediate "mystery death." :D)
As I understand it, each participant has to have complete trust in the participant immediately below him. LBJ has to have complete trust that Byrd will somehow get the job done without knowing the details. Byrd has to trust Cason and deals only with him, Cason has to trust Shelley and deals only with him, and Shelley has to trust Dougherty. In other words, LBJ and Byrd do not sit down and hatch a plot involving Cason, Shelley and Dougherty – is this not correct? This is what I mean by each having “100% faith” in the participant below him.
Or is the theory that Byrd did outline his entire plot for LBJ and that Cason and Shelley and perhaps even Dougherty were fully informed, at least about everything except LBJ's involvement? I thought the idea was to keep each stage as fully compartmentalized as possible for purposes of deniability – Dougherty knows nothing but Shelley, Shelley knows nothing but Cason, Cason knows nothing but Byrd.
Either way, LBJ is either knowingly putting his fate in the hands of characters like Cason, Shelley and Dougherty or in “whomever Byrd finds to carry out the task.” Even in LBJ’s precarious circumstances, this seems to me like a fantastic risk for LBJ to take. As I said, I can see LBJ using his many connections to find a single gunman answerable only to him and under his complete control more easily than I can picture him involved in a plot such as this. I don't see how this qualifies as "bananas."
Next what I’m talking about is any evidence that Cason, Shelley and Dougherty actually were near-insane right-wing fanatics who would have been readily amenable to an assassination plot on strictly ideological grounds. The “shoot JFK” statement attributed to Cason at a party two years before the JFKA seems like pretty thin gruel.
My main issue is that you write as though this would have been practically business as usual, as though they were planning the robbery of a Circle K in Plano: Byrd suggests to LBJ let’s whack JFK, LBJ says go for it, Byrd tells Cason to whack JFK, Cason tells Shelley, Shelley tells Dougherty, and Dougherty says OK I’ll do it. In my mind, there is something missing as to why Cason, Shelley and Dougherty would just cheerfully agree to put their lives at extreme risk by assassinating the President. You make the connection with their supposed fanatical hatred of JFK, but where is any evidence of this? And then they all just return to their mundane TSBD existences the next day? It just doesn’t strike me as being as plausible as it obviously does you. For the Mafia, on the other hand, this really would have been business as usual.
(The new avatar is my actual maternal grandfather, Theo Skladany, who is the only member of the family who was not green and did not have webbed fingers or insectoid eyes. We don't know where the heck he came from.)
-
I will try once more and then I won't beat it to death. You may have the last word. I'm truly puzzled as to why you view your scenario as completely plausible and I'm having difficulty seeing it.
Yes, your theory has minimal participants, so that’s a plus. But those five participants extend from the Vice President of the United States to a possibly mentally challenged guy who is still a lowly shipping clerk after eleven years of employment at the TSBD. (Dougherty lived until 1994, even though in your scenario he would seem to have been a prime candidate for an almost immediate "mystery death." :D)
As I understand it, each participant has to have complete trust in the participant immediately below him. LBJ has to have complete trust that Byrd will somehow get the job done without knowing the details. Byrd has to trust Cason and deals only with him, Cason has to trust Shelley and deals only with him, and Shelley has to trust Dougherty. In other words, LBJ and Byrd do not sit down and hatch a plot involving Cason, Shelley and Dougherty – is this not correct? This is what I mean by each having “100% faith” in the participant below him.
Or is the theory that Byrd did outline his entire plot for LBJ and that Cason and Shelley and perhaps even Dougherty were fully informed, at least about everything except LBJ's involvement? I thought the idea was to keep each stage as fully compartmentalized as possible for purposes of deniability – Dougherty knows nothing but Shelley, Shelley knows nothing but Cason, Cason knows nothing but Byrd.
Either way, LBJ is either knowingly putting his fate in the hands of characters like Cason, Shelley and Dougherty or in “whomever Byrd finds to carry out the task.” Even in LBJ’s precarious circumstances, this seems to me like a fantastic risk for LBJ to take. As I said, I can see LBJ using his many connections to find a single gunman answerable only to him and under his complete control more easily than I can picture him involved in a plot such as this. I don't see how this qualifies as "bananas."
Next what I’m talking about is any evidence that Cason, Shelley and Dougherty actually were near-insane right-wing fanatics who would have been readily amenable to an assassination plot on strictly ideological grounds. The “shoot JFK” statement attributed to Cason at a party two years before the JFKA seems like pretty thin gruel.
My main issue is that you write as though this would have been practically business as usual, as though they were planning the robbery of a Circle K in Plano: Byrd suggests to LBJ let’s whack JFK, LBJ says go for it, Byrd tells Cason to whack JFK, Cason tells Shelley, Shelley tells Dougherty, and Dougherty says OK I’ll do it. In my mind, there is something missing as to why Cason, Shelley and Dougherty would just cheerfully agree to put their lives at extreme risk by assassinating the President. You make the connection with their supposed fanatical hatred of JFK, but where is any evidence of this? And then they all just return to their mundane TSBD existences the next day? It just doesn’t strike me as being as plausible as it obviously does you. For the Mafia, on the other hand, this really would have been business as usual.
You accept that people connected with the mafia would "cheerfully agree to put their lives at extreme risk by assassinating the President". You accept that people "cheerfully agree" to kill other people all the time, even with the penalty of death hanging over their heads. But you somehow can't get your head around these men doing such a thing?
It's like you're deliberately refusing to comprehend that they might do such a thing.
You accept others but not these.
Your point that the men "extend from the Vice President of the United States to a possibly mentally challenged guy who is still a lowly shipping clerk after eleven years of employment at the TSBD." seems meaningless. I can't fathom what you're trying to get at or what the weird factoid regarding Dougherty is about. I'm assuming it's humour but it's hard to say. Maybe you're trying to ridicule something rather than argue it through. I can't tell.
You don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of a conspiracy. By it's very nature it is a hidden thing in which the participants are bound together by the act itself. It's not about trust or faith.
You also don't seem to be getting the concept of compartmentalisation.
LBJ and Byrd are separated from Shelley and Dougherty by Cason. Only Cason knows both groups. Neither group knows the other or has any contact with the other.
Please remember, this is just an idea.
Just a theory.
We can have a discussion about the plausibility of it but now you are expecting me to prove the political ideologies of each man and know their innermost thoughts. No-one has a clue why Oswald might have wanted to kill JFK. He has no motive whatsoever. In fact, JFK's stance on Civil Rights would have appealed to Oswald very much and he would have known that by killing JFK it would be a return to the old ways. Oswald would have been far more inclined to kill Connally or LBJ than JFK. The idea he killed JFK for notoriety then denied all knowledge of it is ludicrous.
Yet many people accept it without any of the kind of proof you are expecting from me.
Hatred for JFK in the City of Hate was rife. Ultra right wing ideologies were rife. A large portion of the Dallas Police Department were Klan members. It is not too much of a leap to assume many others held such views.
In my completely made up scenario which I am inventing right now, Cason is ultra right wing and would gladly see JFK shot. Because of his extreme hatred of JFK Byrd knows he is the man to approach. Particularly as he works in the building he owns. Cason is brought in on the plot and knows of someone who works at the TSBD who shares the same views. Cason approaches Shelley because he is ultra right wing and hates JFK. Shelley has no idea that LBJ and Byrd are involved.
It is Shelley who organises the actual assassination. Someone needs to shoot the rifle and Shelley has the perfect guy in mind. Someone who is easily manipulated and will keep his mouth shut.
All that is left is the patsy.
There is a photo of someone who looks exactly the same as Bill Shelley in New Orleans. He is absolutely identical.
Oswald is in the same photo. This can be used to support the idea that Shelley knew Oswald and knew his politics.
The conspirators are all bound by their hatred of JFK and the genuine belief that they are protecting the country and the American way of life by removing JFK.
In this scenario:
How did Oswald get the job in the TSBD? It would have to be something Shelley organised but this doesn't appear to be the case.
How did LBJ ensure the route of the motorcade? Is there evidence he was involved with this?
Is there any evidence Cason benefitted financially from this? Was his hatred for JFK enough on its own (I like that you think the Cason household wanting JFK shot is "thin gruel". It's actually very handy when making up a theory.)
I'm sure there's lots more to consider but the basic idea is that someone fired a rifle out of a window and someone else was framed for it. It's really not complicated. As already stated, the main obstacle is Oswald's involvement and how that was accomplished.
-
No-one has a clue why Oswald might have wanted to kill JFK. He has no motive whatsoever.
Fritz was the one of the last people to spend considerable time with Oswald.
Mr. DULLES. Have you any views of your own as to motive from your talks with him? Did you get any clues as to possible motive in assassinating the President?
Mr. FRITZ. I can only tell you what little I know now. I am sure that we have people in Washington here that can tell far more than I can.
Mr. DULLES. Well, you saw the man and the others didn't see the man.
Mr. FRITZ. I got the impression, I got the impression that he was doing it because of his feeling about the Castro revolution, and I think that he felt, he had a lot of feeling about that revolution.
(At this point the Chief Justice entered the hearing room.)
Mr. FRITZ. I think that was the reason. I noticed another thing. I noticed a little before when Walker was shot, he had come out with some statements about Castro and about Cuba and a lot of things and if you will remember the President had some stories a few weeks before his death about Cuba and about Castro and some things, and I wondered if that didn't have some bearing. I have no way of knowing that other than just watching him and talking to him. I think it was his feeling about his belief in being a Marxist, I think he had--he told me he had debated in New Orleans, and that he tried to get converts to this Fair Play for Cuba organization, so I think that was his motive. I think he was doing it because of that.
Oswald in New Orleans handing out "Hands off Cuba" leaflets
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcREIgle_n5Ym3Lqvxrwg9MsOnZBFGg2wBDjTVE5nFQA6LF8x8Q&s)
Oswald's "Fair play for Cuba" membership card where he was also the Chapter President.
(https://i.postimg.cc/vByVsPVC/oswald-fair-play-for-cuba-member.jpg)
Three days before Oswald killed Kennedy, there was this newspaper article in the Dallas Times Herald of Kennedy saying that it would be a happy day if the Castro government was ousted.
(https://i.postimg.cc/V6JFJZ6v/WH-Vol26-0053a.gif)
Oswald's personal possessions had a collection of positive Castro literature.
(https://i.postimg.cc/MK5mMHNL/oswald-literature.jpg)
In late September, Oswald was in Mexico City requesting a visa to travel to Cuba.
Mr. CORNWELL. Senor Azcue, this particular document bears the name Lee Harvey Oswald, and the date September 27, 1963. Do you recall the occasion upon which this application was filed with your consulate?
Senor AZCUE. Fine. This gentleman wants me to narrate the antecedents of the visits of this individual to the consulate. Is that the nature of the question?
Mr. CORNWELL. That is correct. If you recall the occasion on which this specific application was filed, would you describe that occasion for us.
Senor AZCUE. Certainly, with pleasure. Yes, this gentleman appeared on the date indicated at the consulate, requesting a visa to travel to Cuba. This gentleman was referred to, as was the usual practice in the consulate, to Mrs. Sylvia Duran, a Mexican citizen, who was responsible for handling these contacts with persons applying for such visas.
A week after the Dallas Herald Times reported that Walker wanted to "liquidate the [communist] scourge that has descended upon the island of Cuba" Oswald ordered his rifle and not long after Oswald took photos of General Walkers house and a little later Oswald tried to kill General Walker.
In February 1963, Walker joined Billy Hargis on an anti-communist tour named "Operation Midnight Ride".[24] In a speech Walker made on March 5, reported in the Dallas Times Herald, he called on the United States military to "liquidate the [communist] scourge that has descended upon the island of Cuba."[25] Seven days later, Lee Harvey Oswald ordered a Carcano rifle by mail, using the alias "A. Hidell".[26]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Walker
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQ822SnJYZCpzMys89HFCy5YUyGSz8wNb3-gg&usqp=CAU)
Do the Math!
JohnM
-
A thought occurred to me that I wanted to add. It will sound like I'm replying to Dan after saying he could have the last word, but it does kind of tie in:
My original post was not talking about thought exercises. In fact, I think Dan originally floated his LBJ-Byrd scenario in response to a thread I had started that was about precisely that - i.e., a challenge to articulate a simple, believable conspiracy theory. (Dan may have developed his theory long before that, but that's where I first encountered it.)
Now that I'm goofing around with my Mafia theory and Ben is presenting his G2 possibility, I'm talking about a conspiracy theory that is (1) realistically minimalist, (2) plausible in terms of motive and means, (3) can account for Oswald and Dealey Plaza in a realistic way, and (4) is supported by something resembling evidence (e.g., the supposed confessions of Trafficante and Marcello). A conspiracy theory that is something more than a thought experiment and might cause a mainstream historian to sit up and take notice. A theory for which intensive research might even lead to new and more compelling evidence.
This is what have been trying to get at with Dan when I talk about "fleshing out" his theory (if he wishes). Whatever one may think of John Orr's efforts, he has tried to do and is continuing to try to do what I'm suggesting.
-
JM -
I absolutely agree that this was Oswald's primary motive. It fits equally well with the LN narrative and a conspiracy narrative in which Oswald thought he was doing what the LN narrative posits him doing but was actually the dupe* of others with an entirely different motive. The problem (if one wants to explore conspiracy possibilities) is plausibly connecting him to these mysterious "others." He was pretty vocal and visible about his pro-Castro sympathies, but how would he and his employment in the TSBD have become known to these "others?" Since Byrd owned the TSBD building and Cason was president of the TSBD company, I suppose this is one selling point of Dan's theory if he can account for how either of them would have known of Oswald's background.
*I am sick of "patsy." "Dupe" is my new thing. :D
-
(https://harveyandlee.net/TSBD_Elevator/2_shelleys.jpg)
In my made up scenario the pics above show Bill Shelley in New Orleans hanging around with the Pro-Castro crowd. This can possibly tied in with his reported CIA affiliations (or not)
Oswald is part of the same crowd. This way Shelley can know who Oswald is and that he is a Pro-Castro Marxist. He can also know about Oswald being an ex-Marine who defected to Russia. Shelley can set up Oswald telling him that he is part of some Pro-Castro stunt at the TSBD.
Another handy piece of evidence are the reports that Oswald included Bill Shelley as part of his alibi for leaving the TSBD on the day of the assassination. While being questioned Oswald reportedly said he only left the TSBD as a result of a conversation with Shelley. Oswald is not stupid. He knows its the easiest thing in the world for this alibi to be checked, so he must have been fully expecting Shelley to back him up. If he had no relationship with Shelley he would never have mentioned him and he wouldn't expect Shelley to back him up if it was a lie.
Why would Oswald expect Bill Shelley to cover for him>
-
JM -
I absolutely agree that this was Oswald's primary motive. It fits equally well with the LN narrative and a conspiracy narrative in which Oswald thought he was doing what the LN narrative posits him doing but was actually the dupe* of others with an entirely different motive. The problem (if one wants to explore conspiracy possibilities) is plausibly connecting him to these mysterious "others." He was pretty vocal and visible about his pro-Castro sympathies, but how would he and his employment in the TSBD have become known to these "others?" Since Byrd owned the TSBD building and Cason was president of the TSBD company, I suppose this is one selling point of Dan's theory if he can account for how either of them would have known of Oswald's background.
*I am sick of "patsy." "Dupe" is my new thing. :D
I would wager that the universe of people who even knew Oswald worked at the TSBD was quite small. It would include his co-workers, Marina, Ruth Paine, and Linnie Mae Randall. Did i miss anybody? This is an important point. If someone is going to posit that others put Oswald up to the assassination, you need to show that those people were aware of the fact Oswald's workplace overlooked the motorcade route.
-
In my made up scenario the pics above show Bill Shelley in New Orleans hanging around with the Pro-Castro crowd. This can possibly tied in with his reported CIA affiliations (or not)
Oswald is part of the same crowd. This way Shelley can know who Oswald is and that he is a Pro-Castro Marxist. He can also know about Oswald being an ex-Marine who defected to Russia. Shelley can set up Oswald telling him that he is part of some Pro-Castro stunt at the TSBD.
Another handy piece of evidence are the reports that Oswald included Bill Shelley as part of his alibi for leaving the TSBD on the day of the assassination. While being questioned Oswald reportedly said he only left the TSBD as a result of a conversation with Shelley. Oswald is not stupid. He knows its the easiest thing in the world for this alibi to be checked, so he must have been fully expecting Shelley to back him up. If he had no relationship with Shelley he would never have mentioned him and he wouldn't expect Shelley to back him up if it was a lie.
Why would Oswald expect Bill Shelley to cover for him>
Does that photo strongly resemble Shelley? Certainly.
There are a number of threads at the Ed Forum regarding the photo, including a long one when (I believe) the Shelley claim was first made. Several CT-oriented members noted the difficulty of "identification" from old photos and the popularity of that hairstyle at the time - posting photos of Ed "Kookie" Byrnes and the Everly Brothers! Larry Hancock offered a different and seemingly pretty convincing take:
I think if you keep looking you will find a wide angle photo which shows the man in question to the right of the leafleting with a group of young girls. Suggest you compare that and you will find he is much younger, was a local DJ
at the time, had just married an under age Latino which got him charged with statutory rape and he would later talk of having been personally at the leafleting, knowing Oswald and a great many other things - he would go on to become a traveling minister, singer and become involved in a number of scans and con games with Fred Chrisman....that should be enough clues.
...
Yes I would suggest it was Beckham, especially since he testified he was there at the leafleting and spoke to Oswald. This has been discussed numerous times before. Nope, I don't have a scanner but its been posted before in similar discussions. Its one of those many things that constantly recycles.
Its up to you guys to decide...you have a statement from someone who says he was there, and talking to Oswald and someone resembling that person is captured in several photos...including the wide angle one with the girls
...
If you decide it is Shelly then it would be good to place him in New Orleans, prove he was not at work in Dallas that day and also come up with a reason why he would have been in New Orleans and would appear with Oswald in public while lots of photos were being taken.
It might even be good to make sure that the whole series of photos shows the suspect as separate from the photo I described with the girls.
Personally I've just become pretty demanding on myself is identifying folks in JFK related photos. I hesitated to even comment on this as its come up before on different forums and occasions but I figured you should at least consider Beckham.
...
David, I'll do this the best I can from memory.....originally in his NO Grand Jury testimony he said he had never met Oswald. However you should take a look at his HSCA interview; that's where I recall he talked about knowing Oswald and even meeting him on the street during the leafleting. You might find this in Joan's book as well or even in Caufield's interviews with him. which I see are on line. Now I have to say I don't trust Mr. Beckham on any detail I cannot independently confirm so at the time I started looking at the photos and found the wider angle which I keep talking about which shows him with the young Latina's. Having gotten his military and arrest records I knew he had just married an underage girl and I also knew he was working at a radio station in the neighborhood. After examining several photos I came to the conclusion that he had indeed been there probably had briefly spoken to Oswald who I suspect he did know from hanging around Bannister's young men who did street work for him.
...
Just for reference, at the time of the photo Beckham had just gotten a new job at a radio station - as a disc jockey - and was considerably more "respectable" than previously. He also had a new, underage, wife and would shortly face morals charges over that. In an expanded view of the leafleting photo he can be seen talking with a group of young, very well dressed girls one of whom I suspect was his new wife. Admittedly speculation but it is one thing that would back up his assertion that he had encountered Oswald leafleting on the street. Given that context I'm still maintaining that the individual in question was Thomas Beckham.
...
Joe I don't impose my ideas on anybody and yes I am saying the individual talking to the young women in one view, the same as seen in a separate photo closer to Oswald, is Beckham. He ways he was there, he says he observed Oswald, he provably worked in New Orleans and in that area at the time. If you want to bring somebody else in strictly based on appearance that's your call - personally I have always needed more than appearances to prove in a suspect for myself, but that's just me.
Bill Shelley singing with Don Everly. Phil had a cold and couldn't make the gig. Shelley mucked up the lyrics to "Wake Up, Little Susie" but otherwise did a creditable job. :D
(https://d32npw6kvi3558.cloudfront.net/vocalgroup/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/The-Everly-Brothers.png)
-
JM -
I absolutely agree that this was Oswald's primary motive. It fits equally well with the LN narrative and a conspiracy narrative in which Oswald thought he was doing what the LN narrative posits him doing but was actually the dupe* of others with an entirely different motive. The problem (if one wants to explore conspiracy possibilities) is plausibly connecting him to these mysterious "others." He was pretty vocal and visible about his pro-Castro sympathies, but how would he and his employment in the TSBD have become known to these "others?" Since Byrd owned the TSBD building and Cason was president of the TSBD company, I suppose this is one selling point of Dan's theory if he can account for how either of them would have known of Oswald's background.
*I am sick of "patsy." "Dupe" is my new thing. :D
Theoretically possible doesn't equate to plausible. You need evidence that the people who you think duped Oswald knew he worked at a building overlooking the motorcade route and that they persuaded him to carry out the assassination. Imagination is a poor substitute for evidence.
-
Theoretically possible doesn't equate to plausible. You need evidence that the people who you think duped Oswald knew he worked at a building overlooking the motorcade route and that they persuaded him to carry out the assassination. Imagination is a poor substitute for evidence.
Unlike zealots of any stripe, I don't actually "need" anything insofar as the JFKA is concerned. Insofar as a plausible conspiracy theory is concerned, I don't think the conspirators needed to know Oswald was working in a building overlooking the motorcade route before recruiting him. He was an in-your-face Castro supporter and Marxist whose sympathies could have been known to many people and who could have been involved in anti-JFK discussions well in advance of the JFKA. It could have been Oswald who approached the others and said "Holy cow, JFK is going to be right in front of the building in which I'm working!" Certainly, as Dan recognizes, convincingly tying Oswald into "the plot" is the primary obstacle to even the most plausible conspiracy theory.
-
Unlike zealots of any stripe, I don't actually "need" anything insofar as the JFKA is concerned.
No you don't. Imagination suffices when cooking up JFKA conspiracy theories. However, if you want to make a compelling argument, you need to do a little better. Some evidence would be nice.
Insofar as a plausible conspiracy theory is concerned, I don't think the conspirators needed to know Oswald was working in a building overlooking the motorcade route before recruiting him. He was an in-your-face Castro supporter and Marxist whose sympathies could have been known to many people and who could have been involved in anti-JFK discussions well in advance of the JFKA.
Why would they recruit someone if they didn't know he had a perch overlooking the motorcade route. Did they just get lucky?
It could have been Oswald who approached the others and said "Holy cow, JFK is going to be right in front of the building in which I'm working!"
If Oswald was going to shoot JFK, why would he need to approach anybody? Why not just do it an not tell anybody?
Certainly, as Dan recognizes, convincingly tying Oswald into "the plot" is the primary obstacle to even the most plausible conspiracy theory.
It is not an obstacle. It is an essential element for anyone positing Oswald was part of a conspiracy and not just acting alone. This is the one element that all conspiracy theories lack. Compelling evidence that someone other than Oswald was complicit in the assassination. For over 6 decades, CTs have used imagination in lieu of evidence to support their theories. If they can conceive it, they will believe it.
-
Why would they recruit someone if they didn't know he had a perch overlooking the motorcade route. Did they just get lucky?
Free your mind, Grasshopper. Does a patsy dupe require a perch overlooking the motorcade route? If he was in fact a dupe, he could have fulfilled his dupedom from anywhere. He would have been recruited as a dupe not because he had a perch but because who he was fit perfectly with where the Bad Guys were trying to point - i.e., Cuba. The fact that JFK was planning to visit Dallas was known considerably in advance of 11-22 - indeed, before Mr. Dupe had visited MC or begun work in the TSBD. It may be that the TSBD was the best he could do at the time and then, voila, turned out to be perfect. If Oswald were a non-dupe, pretty much the same logic applies. In fact, the sixth floor of the TSBD seems so Stoopidly Risky to me that I have difficulty fitting it into any plausible narrative, LN or CT, other than "Maybe the dupe will get lucky and actually hit JFK and our pro won't even be needed. If he's killed, we don't care. If he survives, we don't care. Either way, he serves his purpose."
When the student is ready, the teacher will appear.
If Oswald was going to shoot JFK, why would he need to approach anybody? Why not just do it an not tell anybody?
Free your mind and enter into the bliss of non-dualistic thinking, Grasshopper. If the LN narrative were correct, he would not need to approach anyone. If he were already part of a conspiracy, however, either as a dupe or a participant, he would be informing his co-conspirators that the time was right and he was sitting in the proverbial catbird seat. The Bad Guys would then implement other aspects of the plan - a shooter in the Dal-Tex or County Records building, perhaps, or a guy in the storm drain with CIA-issued ice bullets, or Umbrella Man with his poison flanchettes, or ... whatever.
It is not an obstacle. It is an essential element for anyone positing Oswald was part of a conspiracy and not just acting alone. This is the one element that all conspiracy theories lack. Compelling evidence that someone other than Oswald was complicit in the assassination. For over 6 decades, CTs have used imagination in lieu of evidence to support their theories. If they can conceive it, they will believe it.
You are on the edge of enlightenment, Grasshoppper. "If they can conceive it, they will believe it" is right out of the Tao ("The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao, the name that can be named is not Lee Harvey Oswald"). You are merely repeating what open-minded sages such as Dan* and myself have cheerfully acknowledged - yes, a plausible conspiracy theory must account for Oswald in some evidence-based way. John Orr thinks he has done this, but I will reserve judgment until I more clearly understand what he is claiming. (*Mr. O'Meara is currently a probationary sage but is making solid progress toward full satori.)
I really think that no more than five episodes of Kung Fu would be sufficient to free you from the mental prison in which you are currently trapped.
"Live long and prosper." No, wait, that was Mr. Spock. Oh, well, whatever.
-
Why would other shooter than Oswald choose TSBD and Dealey Plaza as the place to shoot at JFK limo?
I’ve long since given up on the idea that there was more than one shooter , because one shooter , especially a well trained one is good enough at ranges less than 100 yds.
But it’s highly doubtful a professional shooter would choose this shooting of a moving target scenario when he could have easily chosen to shoot JFK somewhere else as a stationary target.
Possibilities:
A. The shooter was some other TSBD employee.
B. The shooter was a BOP survivor who had a vendetta against Oswald after discovering him in New Orleans handing out Hands Off Cuba leaflets. Or the conspirator had known Oswald while training with Alpha 66 and considered Oswald a traitorous informant.
C. LBJ sees an opportunity after the Thomas Arthur Vallee incident.
Option A could only apply to considering
Jack Dougherty. The question is if he used the MC rifle found on the 6th floor or did he use some other rifle? If he used some other rifle, then he planted the MC rifle? Why did he do that and how did he get the MC rifle in the 1st place. What’s his problem with Oswald enough to desire to set up Oswald? What’s his motive to shoot at JFK? Too many questions makes this an impertinence option.
Option B: is the more probable one if the Alpha 66 conspirator hated JFK for betraying his BOP comrades and he equally despised Oswald for being a traitor and an informant. He may even have hated Americans in Dallas Texas generally.
So this conspirator figures out how to set up Oswald and practices with an MC rifle shooting at moving targets from a high elevation. He may have befriended Oswald, and driven Oswald to take a shot at Walker. Possibly this conspirator was one of the men at Sylvia Odios apartment. She saw Oswald with these 2 “Mexicans” as she described them, but it’s very coincidental with a story by Loran Hall and William Seymour, 2 Cubans with possible CIA and BOP history. Loran Hall claimed he had been approached to do the shooting. Whether that is merely bravado or whether it’s true is anyone’s guess.
Option C: LBJ taking advantage of information from a possible CIA asset George DeM that Oswald was a defector who had recently shot at Walker. Then when Thomas Arthur Vallee was apprehended in Chicago and LBJ was briefed that this guy also was a kook USMC combat vet that coincidentally was a member of the Marxist Oswald’s strange pro Cuba organization, LBJ keeps JFK from finding out that the Marxist loose cannon Kook Oswald is in the TSBD building. LBJ encourages JFK to visit Dallas imagining that JFK might just get killed. It’s a roulette wheel plan of ill intent based on chance that the known kook Oswald likely might take a shot at JFK just as Thomas Arthur Vallee had attempted to do in Chicago.
-
Why would other shooter than Oswald choose TSBD and Dealey Plaza as the place to shoot at JFK limo?
I’ve long since given up on the idea that there was more than one shooter , because one shooter , especially a well trained one is good enough at ranges less than 100 yds.
But it’s highly doubtful a professional shooter would choose this shooting of a moving target scenario when he could have easily chosen to shoot JFK somewhere else as a stationary target.
Possibilities:
A. The shooter was some other TSBD employee.
B. The shooter was a BOP survivor who had a vendetta against Oswald after discovering him in New Orleans handing out Hands Off Cuba leaflets. Or the conspirator had known Oswald while training with Alpha 66 and considered Oswald a traitorous informant.
C. LBJ sees an opportunity after the Thomas Arthur Vallee incident.
Option A could only apply to considering
Jack Dougherty. The question is if he used the MC rifle found on the 6th floor or did he use some other rifle? If he used some other rifle, then he planted the MC rifle? Why did he do that and how did he get the MC rifle in the 1st place. What’s his problem with Oswald enough to desire to set up Oswald? What’s his motive to shoot at JFK? Too many questions makes this an impertinence option.
Option B: is the more probable one if the Alpha 66 conspirator hated JFK for betraying his BOP comrades and he equally despised Oswald for being a traitor and an informant. He may even have hated Americans in Dallas Texas generally.
So this conspirator figures out how to set up Oswald and practices with an MC rifle shooting at moving targets from a high elevation. He may have befriended Oswald, and driven Oswald to take a shot at Walker. Possibly this conspirator was one of the men at Sylvia Odios apartment. She saw Oswald with these 2 “Mexicans” as she described them, but it’s very coincidental with a story by Loran Hall and William Seymour, 2 Cubans with possible CIA and BOP history. Loran Hall claimed he had been approached to do the shooting. Whether that is merely bravado or whether it’s true is anyone’s guess.
Option C: LBJ taking advantage of information from a possible CIA asset George DeM that Oswald was a defector who had recently shot at Walker. Then when Thomas Arthur Vallee was apprehended in Chicago and LBJ was briefed that this guy also was a kook USMC combat vet that coincidentally was a member of the Marxist Oswald’s strange pro Cuba organization, LBJ keeps JFK from finding out that the Marxist loose cannon Kook Oswald is in the TSBD building. LBJ encourages JFK to visit Dallas imagining that JFK might just get killed. It’s a roulette wheel plan of ill intent based on chance that the known kook Oswald likely might take a shot at JFK just as Thomas Arthur Vallee had attempted to do in Chicago.
Do any of the aforementioned possibilities make more sense to you than Oswald smuggled his rifle into work that day and used it to kill JFK.
-
Do any of the aforementioned possibilities make more sense to you than Oswald smuggled his rifle into work that day and used it to kill JFK.
Only maybe the LBJ conspiracy does and in that one Oswald IS the shooter. So that’s a kind of conspiracy by LBJ of hiding info from JFK that there a potential threat from Oswald working in TSBD and encouraging JFK to visit Dallas via open top limo traveling slowly.
-
Why would other shooter than Oswald choose TSBD and Dealey Plaza as the place to shoot at JFK limo?
I’ve long since given up on the idea that there was more than one shooter , because one shooter , especially a well trained one is good enough at ranges less than 100 yds.
I don't think anyone other than Oswald would choose TSBD6. It just has way too many risks associated with it. For that matter, I've expressed puzzlement that Oswald would choose it. It was the lunch hour, the M-C was nicely wrapped as curtain rods, no one paid any attention to Oswald anyway, and he could have easily decamped to a much more plausible location like the roof of the Dal-Tex or County Records building. Oswald and his M-C on TSBD6 makes sense if he was a dupe and was somehow (how?) induced to shoot from this unlikely location, with the conspirators (e.g., Mafia) not caring if he was caught or killed because he knew nothing anyway except that he was part of a pro-Castro plot. If he got lucky and killed JFK, that would be the end of the matter. However, because TSBD6 was highly risky and Oswald and his M-C were marginally reliable at best, a pro was stationed on the roof of the Dal-Tex or County Records building if needed (as he was). Either of those locations was essentially risk-free for a pro dressed like a businessman with a briefcase assassination rifle. In this scenario, Dealey Plaza really wasn't a bad assassination scene. I think this scenario makes near-perfect sense; the challenge is filling in the blanks with something resembling evidence, as John Orr is at least trying to do. If one doesn't like the Mafia scenario, an anti-Cuban pro works just as well.
Of course, if OSWALD HIMSELF really didn't care if he was caught or killed, then the TSBD6 and the LN narrative works fine.
-
I don't think anyone other than Oswald would choose TSBD6. It just has way too many risks associated with it. For that matter, I've expressed puzzlement that Oswald would choose it. It was the lunch hour, the M-C was nicely wrapped as curtain rods, no one paid any attention to Oswald anyway, and he could have easily decamped to a much more plausible location like the roof of the Dal-Tex or County Records building. Oswald and his M-C on TSBD6 makes sense if he was a dupe and was somehow (how?) induced to shoot from this unlikely location, with the conspirators (e.g., Mafia) not caring if he was caught or killed because he knew nothing anyway except that he was part of a pro-Castro plot. If he got lucky and killed JFK, that would be the end of the matter. However, because TSBD6 was highly risky and Oswald and his M-C were marginally reliable at best, a pro was stationed on the roof of the Dal-Tex or County Records building if needed (as he was). Either of those locations was essentially risk-free for a pro dressed like a businessman with a briefcase assassination rifle. In this scenario, Dealey Plaza really wasn't a bad assassination scene. I think this scenario makes near-perfect sense; the challenge is filling in the blanks with something resembling evidence, as John Orr is at least trying to do. If one doesn't like the Mafia scenario, an anti-Cuban pro works just as well.
Of course, if OSWALD HIMSELF really didn't care if he was caught or killed, then the TSBD6 and the LN narrative works fine.
Of course, if OSWALD HIMSELF really didn't care if he was caught or killed, then the TSBD6 and the LN narrative works fine.
Is this the Oswald that Frazier said was good with kids and who had just become a father of his second daughter?
-
Of course, if OSWALD HIMSELF really didn't care if he was caught or killed, then the TSBD6 and the LN narrative works fine.
Is this the Oswald that Frazier said was good with kids and who had just become a father of his second daughter?
John Wayne Gacy went one step further and voluntarily spent a lot of his personal time entertaining hospitalized children, John Wayne Gacy also raped, tortured and murdered at least thirty-three young men and boys between 1972 and 1978 in Norwood Park Township, a suburb of Chicago, Illinois.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSWdTiIBzmmLDAdfPHmDD17cvxCIljmmnYIYg&s)
JohnM
-
Of course, if OSWALD HIMSELF really didn't care if he was caught or killed, then the TSBD6 and the LN narrative works fine.
Is this the Oswald that Frazier said was good with kids and who had just become a father of his second daughter?
I went back and added that line to my post because someone was inevitably going to make the point. I have made the point you are making. The alleged attempt on Walker was while Marina was pregnant, so there is certainly a major disconnect. The LN position is that Oswald was basically a sociopath to for whom normal human emotions just weren't part of the equation - but then everything that everyone says about his love for his children flies in the face of that.
-
I went back and added that line to my post because someone was inevitably going to make the point. I have made the point you are making. The alleged attempt on Walker was while Marina was pregnant, so there is certainly a major disconnect. The LN position is that Oswald was basically a sociopath to for whom normal human emotions just weren't part of the equation - but then everything that everyone says about his love for his children flies in the face of that.
Loving his kids is not incompatible with being a murdering scum which is exactly what Oswald was. A truly vile excuse for a human being if ever there was one.